Mr Chairman, shortly before the adjournment last night the hon member for Gordonia made a very constructive speech and I should like to congratulate him on it. It is a very great pleasure to be able to speak after him, although the standard he set will be difficult to maintain.

As one who has listened to the debate from the outset I found it interesting that it brought a few matters very much to the fore. In the first place I want to say something about the hon member for Waterberg. Experience has taught me that one encounters two kinds of leader in politics or in any other sphere. The one leads by virtue of his own strength, whereas the other is carried by people around him. In this regard I should like to refer to an article that appeared in Leadership South Africa on page 34. There the hon leader of the CP said the following:

If one looks at this statement on its own, it is not terribly conclusive, but if one goes further back in history, one sees that the hon member for Waterberg was a clergyman and also editor of Die Kerkbode. At that time pressure was exerted on him to become editor of Hoofstad. He only accepted the post because pressure had been exerted on him. After he had become editor of that newspaper, political pressure was exerted on him to enter politics. The HNP, too, exerted pressure on the hon member to join them. At times we thought that it was really going to happen, but he suddenly dropped those people and became a member of the NP. Eventually he became a Deputy Minister. Now, however, he says that although the ideas of the HNP were not totally unacceptable to him, it was just that he did not like their style. Therefore it is clear that due to pressure exerted on him—very strong pressure at that stage—he preferred to join the NP, despite the fact that the HNP was not entirely unacceptable to him. While he was in the NP, too, pressure was exerted on him. When the pressure exerted by the hon member for Rissik was strongest, he gave in to that pressure and left the NP. If one looks at what the hon member has done from time to time, one has to ask how history will judge him. Is he a leader who leads on the basis of his own strength, or is he being pushed hither and thither in response to pressure?

With reference to something which the hon member said yesterday, I should like to put a second question to him. He said that he could not be reproached for having repudiated his signature under the 12-point plan because, he says, he did not sign every point individually. That is a very interesting argument. Subsequently he asked the hon the Prime Minister whether he was sure that the Nkomati Accord would be complied with. I could not understand why the hon member asked such a question. However, when one looks at this argument of his, one sees why he asked the question. His argument is that because he only signed at one place, he did not accept responsibility for all 12 points. Therefore there is a difference between the hon the Prime Minister and the hon member for Waterberg. The hon the Prime Minister and President Samora Machel signed this accord and I believe that these two statesmen will abide by the accord to the letter, and that should be accepted. However, the hon member for Waterberg suggests that President Machel will repudiate the accord just as he repudiated the 12-point plan, because he had not signed every point of it.

Because the hon member for Waterberg is not present at the moment, I shall put a question that I had wanted to put to him, to the hon member for Langlaagte instead. Would they take it amiss of President Machel if he advanced the same excuse as that advanced by the hon member for Waterberg, viz that he had not signed on every page?

I should like to congratulate the hon the Prime Minister on what he has already achieved on the economic front. I believe that by virtue of the Nkomati Accord we have begun to move away from the idea of “one man, one vote” to that of “one man, one job”. If one sets South Africa against the rest of Africa, South Africa stands head and shoulders above the rest of Africa. However, that is not enough. We have the only progressive capitalist system in Africa, and this can serve as a showcase, not only for the rest of Africa, but also for the rest of the Western world.

In congratulating the hon the Prime Minister on what he has achieved, I should like to mention that one of his greatest achievements is the fact that he managed to bring about teamwork between the public sector and the Government on the one hand and the private sector on the other. Here one calls to mind in particular the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference, as well as the anti-inflation congress. But allow me to turn to the greatest achievement of the hon the Prime Minister thus far. Last week I was at Nkomati, at Malelane and on the border, and there we encountered something which has taken root in South Africa. If we are going to follow this up in the rest of Africa, a bright future can be predicted for South Africa. I refer to idealism. This will determine whether or not we shall have a future in this country. Today I want to convey the message to the hon the Prime Minister that through the Nkomati Accord he has instilled idealism in the people in that region. Everyone in that region, including CP supporters, are dreaming dreams, and everyone is prepared to develop that part of the country and provide the rest of Africa with food. As yet they have only developed 20 000 ha in that part of the world and there are still 50 000 to 60 000 ha that are as yet undeveloped. They can help the whole of Mozambique. Those people are filled with a dream of the future and with idealism, and that is what the hon the Prime Minister of South Africa has achieved. A spirit of idealism and success is taking root in this country. As far as I know, this is the first time Opposition leaders have congratulated an hon Prime Minister on his achievements and said that he was the most successful Prime Minister of South Africa. I, too, wish to add my congratulations and wish him everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vasco will excuse me if I do not react to his speech in detail. The first part reminded me of one of those tear-jerker dramas one sees on television; one could almost call it a political “Dallas”. The casting is now becoming so complicated that one can no longer keep up with who said what to whom and when. I assume that the struggle between the CP and the National Party will just have to burn itself out in our politics.

The hon the Prime Minister said yesterday that one should not speak when one is angry. I agree with that. I was angry yesterday and I was disappointed. Today I am no longer angry, but I must say that I am still disappointed. I am still disappointed in view of the questions and insinuations addressed to me by the hon the Prime Minister in the course of his speech as a result of the request I put to him concerning the appointment of a select committee of Parliament to investigate the allegations relating to the State Oil Fund. The questions asked by the hon the Prime Minister were (Hansard, 26 April):

That is to say, me:

These are also the questions which were given considerable attention on television last night and on the news this morning.

Let me say at once that right from the outset I was by no means looking for a fight as far as this matter is concerned. I think that the hon the Prime Minister can concede that. The hon the Prime Minister saw fit to quote confidential correspondence to state his side of the matter and, I believe, to drive me into a corner somewhat with reference to the request I had put to him. I think that for the sake of completeness I, too, shall quote from this correspondence. The hon the Prime Minister quoted certain paragraphs from the first letter I addressed to him. For the sake of completeness, I want to quote certain other paragraphs from it so that there may be no confusion as to precisely what the nature of the allegations was and what I said to the hon the Prime Minister.

†I wrote to him as follows:

What were these allegations? I quote further:

1. (1) The Strategic Fuel Fund paid R385 million more than the contract price for oil to certain suppliers. This does not refer to the difference between the official oil price and the price South Africa could obtain oil at, but the price we contracted at and the amount we actually paid. We believe this was done without ministerial approval.

1. (2) These contracts were the Mark Rich contract and the John Deuss contracts.
2. (3) We also know that with regard to the Salem affairs the SFF itself did not lay a complaint with the Police or any other body to investigate the matter, nor have they done so to date despite the magnitude of the sum of money they lost. The SFF refused to assist the lawyers of Shell, Lloyds or Scotland Yard. They only revealed certain information after instructions from Minister P du Plessis who was then the relevant Minister. The Salem facts are well known, but the reasons for the considerable delay in investigating and reporting on this matter are not known. It is common knowledge that Mr Mark Rich, who is based in Zug, Switzerland, is wanted by the US authorities who have issued a warrant for his arrest. He is charged with one of the biggest tax frauds in American history and he and his companies have been indicted for violating now defunct contracts for the supply of oil.

Then the hon the Prime Minister read the next paragraph, but I should also like to quote the final paragraph:

That is what I wrote to the hon the Prime Minister, and I delivered it to him personally after requesting an interview. After I had the interview with the Prime Minister, which I was satisfied went off very well, I was asked by the present Minister of Manpower to come and see him at short notice, and I did so. He was then Acting Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs because the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was not in the country. I am not going to divulge what went on—it is largely innocuous—except to say that I was satisfied that the hon the Prime Minister had immediately dealt with the matter by referring it to the Acting Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and that they would go into the matter. I did not raise anything. I did not go to the Press or talk about it abroad. Then, the following day—that was the Tuesday—the hon the Prime Minister again asked me to come and see him, and I went. He told me personally that he had decided to refer the matter to the Advocate-General and that he would make a statement later. I asked him to make a statement. He said he would make a statement but that he first wanted to have a discussion with the Advocate-General. I said that was fine. The hon the Prime Minister then sent me his letter—I received it on 5 April—which he read to the House yesterday.

*I also said to the hon the Prime Minister that I was satisfied that he had done that.

I also wrote a third letter to the hon the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he received it. At one of our caucus meetings during which we discussed the Order Paper, some of my people said that there was legislation on the Order Paper that had to be discussed and that this matter could be broached during those discussions. Thereupon I wrote to the hon the Prime Minister as follows:

Yes, but what did I do?

Exactly. That is exactly what the hon the Prime Minister did.

*There was no change in attitude on my part. There was no political point-scoring. I shall explain it to the hon the Prime Minister in a moment. I did everything in my power not to make a fuss about this matter in public. I did everything in my power to deal with this matter via Parliament. I did not run to the Press with it or make sensational statements about it. I must also point out that I was not present here when the hon the Prime Minister reacted to the question of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He reacted to that and said that other allegations had also been referred to the Advocate-General. Those were the allegations which I had submitted to the hon the Prime Minister. Three were no other allegations. I must say that that was not the fullest statement I have ever heard from the hon the Prime Minister concerning any matter. The Press approached me and I told them precisely what the situation was and why I had done that.

Why, then, do I request the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee? That is the question. [Interjections.] Two kinds of allegations are being made. The first is that irregularities took place in that people may have enriched themselves due to their involvement with the State Oil Fund. The other allegation is one of incompetence in the expenditure of public money. Allow me to give the hon the Prime Minister examples in this regard. This is the dilemma that I am faced with. I did not raise the matter across the floor of this House or in public. I discussed it with my caucus on that Wednesday. I might mention to the hon the Prime Minister in passing that may caucus, too, is now hearing for the first time precisely what the nature of the allegations are, as I read them out here. I did not inform them prior to this. I told them on that Wednesday how I wanted to deal with the matter during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister. I pointed out that there were two kinds of allegations concerning security that were being brought to one’s attention. The one is anonymous, private, and the other is in public. I said to them that that was how I wanted to explain to the hon the Prime Minister how we wanted to deal with these matters. We then discussed the entire matter and agreed—two members of my caucus knew about this—that it was in order that the allegations submitted to the hon the Prime Minister be investigated by the Advocate-General.

However, it did not stop at that. They, and I, too, have received anonymous telephone calls. I cannot run to the Advocate-General with every anonymous call. What is the nature of these calls? In any case, how does one take a telephone call to the Advocate-General? This is a real dilemma. One of the anonymous allegations was that the State Oil Fund received several offers of cheaper oil, but preferred to work through Zug in Switzerland, using more expensive brokers. I do not know whether that is true. A second allegation is that officials work through Zug because it is easier to open Swiss bank accounts. How am I to know that? A third allegation is that oil brokers make profits from oil amounting to hundreds of millions of rands in South Africa without paying any income tax. A fourth allegation is that what I submitted to the hon the Prime Minister was only the tip of the iceberg. How was I to handle these matters? I did not run to the Press, but merely said that these allegations were being made not only about irregular conduct but also about incompetent …

Have you conveyed those allegations to the Advocate-General?

What can I say to the Advocate-General?

Have you conveyed them to him? I shall settle your hash. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Bryanston may not refer to another hon member as a “grootbek” (loudmouth). The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw it if die hon the Prime Minister withdraws his threat.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon the Prime Minister threaten the hon the Leader of the Opposition in that way? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the point I am trying to make here is that as far as I was able, and with the documentary evidence at my disposal, I put the matter to the hon the Prime Minister. Does the hon the Prime Minister really want to say to me that I should refer to the Advocate-General every call I receive or every allegation made to me? I want to speak to the hon the Prime Minister in all reasonableness, but I am in a dilemma. I urge these people not to approach me with their allegations but to address them to the Advocate-General. Indeed, I have said in this House that that is what I tell people who come to me with allegations. However, this is not the first time we have been trapped in a dilemma of this nature. After all, the hon the Prime Minister knows how these things work. Is it not better for us to deal with the matter in Parliament than for there to be a constant flow of gossip in this regard? Therefore I ask what one is to do with such rumours. After all I cannot always be approaching the Advocate-General with them. In the normal course—and this is the important point— complaints or misgivings about irregular expenditure of public money come to the attention of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. However, we know that in terms of the relevant Act the State Oil Fund does not fall under this committee. That is provided in section 42(7) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No 66 of 1975. Why does the State Oil Fund not fall under that select committee? Because it concerns an issue which is of a confidential nature and is of strategic importance. However, that confidential and strategic position is being jeopardized by these very allegations, and that is why we are faced with the dilemma. How are we to investigate this matter? We cannot do it by way of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The allegations suggest the possible abuse of this position of confidence on a massive scale and not only abuse, but also the misspending of funds. It is being alleged that this is not being done in an orderly and disciplined fashion.

However, there is nothing strange about more than one investigation taking place simultaneously. Indeed, this happened during the Information scandal. The Select Committee on Public Accounts began asking questions about the Department of Information while various other investigations were in progress. I believe that those investigations supplemented and assisted one another. Nor does this mean that strangers will carry out this investigation I am requesting. It will be a select committee of Parliament that will do it.

I have just referred to the Information scandal. The hon the Prime Minister and hon members all know how this country was paralysed by that scandal. We all know what happened in Parliament and in the NP caucus. That is why I say that I do not wish to go into the merits of this matter. In the first instance I did not even want the allegations bandied across the floor of this House. I merely asked whether it was not possible for us to appoint a select committee of Parliament which could investigate this matter, because I believe that that is the only way in which Parliament can handle it.

I have said repeatedly that I accept the hon the Prime Minister’s good faith in regard to clean administration. I do not believe that he or any of his Ministers knew about what is alleged to have happened, or condoned it. Of course, responsibility would have to be accepted if it were proved that there had been maladministration or even corruption. Again I say to the hon the Prime Minister that it was not my intention to make political capital out of this matter, and I still do not intend doing so. However, this affects public money in respect of fuel, and we know that it affects the entire economy of the country if there is a possibility that a position of confidence has been abused in this regard. It creates inflationary conditions and affects farming and industry. Indeed, it would affect every household in the country if it were to be true that misspending of funds or irregularities had occurred at this level. This is the statement I want to make to the hon the Prime Minister and which I had hoped—and I say this in all honesty to the hon the Prime Minister—would avoid further problems. I thought that this could be done if I were to ask that we go about it in this way. The hon the Prime Minister can question my motives in this regard if he likes. However, I repeatedly tried to state what the nature of this situation was and how I thought and hoped we could approach this matter.

Then, too, I just want to react briefly to two other statements made by the hon the Prime Minister. The first concerns the whole issue of citizenship. The hon the Prime Minister asked me questions in this regard, and I should like to reply to him. The hon member for Yeoville has also reacted to this. It concerns the issue of whether we would revoke the independence of the independent states and whether we would revoke the status of self-governing states as they stand today. If the hon the Prime Minister were to examine my speech, he would see that in it I stated very clearly that, depending on the standpoint adopted with regard to citizenship, these institutions could be used for a variety of purposes. It is one thing to use an existing institution to perpetuate the Black man’s loss of citizenship. However, it is something totally different to use those same institutions to effect an improvement of the Black man’s South African citizenship. Therefore the answer is very clear. Moreover, that is embodied in our party’s policy, and the hon member for Yeoville also stated this clearly.

In the second place the hon the Prime Minister expressed a standpoint here which I found interesting, and concerning which I believe we would like to have greater clarity. It concerns what the hon the Prime Minister said about the loss of citizenship. In his speech yesterday the hon the Prime Minister said that no citizenship was altered in the absence of agreement. One very interesting standpoint he adopted was the following. He said that everyone born in the Republic of South Africa was naturally a citizen of the country, whether he be Black, Brown or White. I want to know from him whether that also includes, for example, the children of citizens of Transkei if those children were born in the Republic.

But surely that is the statutory situation in any country.

But do they automatically become citizens, on the same basis that the children of foreigners that come to South Africa become citizens of this country? I am not trying to ask the hon the Prime Minister a trick question now, Mr Chairman.

But surely you know what the statutory position is in every country. That is what I referred to.

Yes, the statutory position is clear to me.

That is all I meant.

But this statement requires further clarification, Mr Chairman. The hon the Prime Minister went on to say that everyone born in the Republic of South Africa was naturally a citizen of the country.

That was with reference to the statutory position.

I sincerely thank the hon the Prime Minister for that.

I also wish to make a further statement. For example, the hon the Prime Minister also referred to the Small Business Development Corporation and to the Development Bank of Southern Africa, as well as to the decentralization of industries. All these measures are necessary. These are measures which do not cause me any problems. What is important, however, is that those measures, seen in relation to the loss of citizenship, have a certain considerable impact, whereas those same measures, seen in relation to the work with a view to a common citizenship in South Africa, have a different impact. Therefore I asked the hon the Prime Minister the following simple question: Does the hon the Prime Minister, then, accept that it is possible to work out a governmental dispensation in South Africa based on a common citizenship for Black, Coloured, Asian and White? That is the simple question I put to the hon the Prime Minister, because I believe that this is the point of departure from which we can review all other measures in order to determine whether we can find an acceptable formula in South Africa. In all honesty, I believe that the hon the Prime Minister failed to answer this question.

Moreover, I just want to react briefly to a few other statements made by the hon the Prime Minister with regard to Khayelitsha. I welcome the fact that the hon the Prime Minister says that there is not going to be any forced removal of people in the Western Cape. I welcome, too, the fact that an investigation is in fact going to be carried out— and we have spoken to the officials in question—into how sound township establishment and community development can take place. However, I also wish to make the following statement to the hon the Prime Minister, Mr Chairman. It is going to take time. It is going to take a long time. In the meantime we do have established communities in the Western Cape. Does this mean that because that township establishment and community development is going to take place, it is necessarily the case that no further development of a community nature is going to take place in places like Guguletu, Langa and Nyanga? Those are established communities with their own needs. We agree with the hon the Prime Minister about slum conditions, people who have unsatisfactory accommodation, people who squat on the Cape Flats and so on. In the nature of the matter, those are people who have a need for emergency accommodation. Therefore they must be assisted. We are speaking here about established communities. That is the first question I want to put to the hon the Prime Minister in this connection.

The second question relates to the issue of choice. Say for example they were to tell me in Rondebosch: We are now building you a better suburb over there and you can go and have a look. If you like it, you can decide whether you want to sell your present houses and move there. In those circumstances I should say: Outstanding! We shall go and look and we shall decide. However, if they tell me: “We are building it now and please note that you have five to seven years to stay here, but you are going to have no alternative but to move there”, then that creates tremendous uncertainty and tremendous antipathy in the people involved. It is as regards this question that there is a lack of clarity at the moment.

My participation in the debate on this occasion was by way of reaction to certain questions, standpoints and reservations put forward by the hon the Prime Minister. I want to say in all honesty that when I rose to speak at the outset I did so in a spirit of goodwill. Indeed the hon the Prime Minister himself referred to that. However, there could be one source of misunderstanding, because it was said on the radio that I had said that the hon the Prime Minister was the most successful Prime Minister South Africa had ever had. Success and successful is a concept relative to achievement and to what the hon the Prime Minister has brought about. Whereas I certainly do not wish to detract from the spirit of goodwill in which I referred to that and the sincerity with which I referred to it, I do want to quote exactly what I said on that occasion. I said (Hansard, 25 April):

That is what I said, because that is the era we are living in and that is the era in which we must assess how we are handling our national problems. I am not acquainted with Hertzog and Smuts and those people to the same extent as I am acquainted with the NP Government. I went on to say:

That is how I tried to put it in perspective. I went to say that the success of the hon the Prime Minister had given our problems greater clarity but had not necessarily solved them. However, I added that it was to his credit—and I reiterate this—that the success he had achieved thereby had enabled us to seek possible solutions in a new way. It is in this spirit that I reacted to the questions put to me by the hon the Prime Minister and in which I also raised further problems relating to Black citizenship and the future of Khayelitsha.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that he was angry yesterday. I would suggest that the hon the Leader was not only angry, but shamefacedly angry. He was shamefacedly angry because he realized that he had made a fool of himself by insisting that this particular matter should be referred to a select committee. [Interjections.]

This morning the hon the Leader of the Opposistion tried to explain that there were two aspects involved in this matter. He concedes that in the first aspect, viz the irregular use of funds, should have been referred to the Advocate-General, but he says that there are also signs of incompetence in the spending of public money, which should not be referred to the Advocate-General, but to a select committee. That was the crux of the argument of the hon the Leader of the Opposition this morning.

Let us examine this argument. Firstly, the Advocate-General reports to Parliament on a regular basis. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to suggest in his letter to the hon the Prime Minister that the debate on this matter should be postponed and that meanwhile the matter should first be referred to the Advocate-General. If it should become necessary, or appear to be necessary, to have this aspect of the matter investigated which the hon the Leader of the Opposition says should not be referred to the Advocate-General, but to a select committee, one would expect that one would wait until the report of the Advocate-General is available.

Why?

It is only logical. Why did the hon the Leader of the Opposition want to postpone the discussion of the matter at all?

I suggest that once the report of the Advocate-General is available, it would be a suitable time for the House to decide whether this second aspect to which the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred, if it has not yet been adequately covered …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Sir, the hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition can put a question, but please just let me finish my sentence.

At that stage the House would be in a better position, if the second aspect of the matter has not already been dealt with thoroughly in the investigation of the Advocate-General, as would become apparent from the report, to consider the appointment of a select committee. To say the least, the hon the Leader of the Opposition was therefore being presumptious when he insisted on a select committee.

Let us take a further look at what the hon the Leader of the Opposition has to say in this regard. He says he is continually being plagued by telephone calls.

Not only I.

Yes, other people are also continually being plagued by telephone calls from people who make all kinds of allegations.

Anonymous telephone calls.

Yes, anonymous telephone calls. The hon the Leader of the Opposition wants to know how he can go to the Advocate-General with telephone calls of that nature. I agree with him, since one must at least have reasonable grounds for suspicion if one goes to the Advocate-General with a matter. The hon the Leader of the Opposition is therefore saying by implication that the telephone calls do not contain reasonable grounds for suspicion; they are merely telephone calls.

You are going too far now.

Regardless of whether or not I am going too far with my statement, the question I want to put to the hon the Leader of the Opposition is this: If he cannot go to the Advocate-General with this information, how on earth can he want to go to a select committee with it? [Interjections.] He wants a select committee appointed; who must come and give evidence before the select committee?

He will probably get the anonymous people together.

Must anonymous telephone callers come and give evidence before the select committee? [Interjections.]

I would suggest that this morning the hon the Leader of the Opposition presented an argument to try to cover up his rash behaviour on the previous occasion when he participated in this debate.

You did just as much stonewalling in the case of the Information scandal.

What are you scared of?

Order!

I am not scared of anything, and this side of the House has never been scared of undertaking an investigation, but …

What about the Information scandal?

What did the Prime Minister …

Order!

The hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition, who has been in this House for longer than I have, ought to know …

You are dead scared. (“Julie is vrek bang”).

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must withdraw the words “Julle is vrek bang”.

Sir, must I withdraw the word “vrek” or the word “bang”?

Order! The hon member must withdraw the remark “Julle is vrek bang”.

Sir, I withdraw the remark.

The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

The hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition, who has been in this House for longer than I have, ought to know that this House has procedures according to which matters are dealt with. He ought to know that a lengthy debate was conducted on the introduction of the Advocate-General. He therefore ought to be familiar with the whole purpose for which the Advocate-General was established, viz to investigate the maladministration of public money.

Corruption.

Is corruption not maladministration? The hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition is trying to protect his hon leader by being clever. I want to give the hon the Leader of the Opposition, who, although he is already the leader of a party, is younger than I am, sound advice. One should not be as surly as he was on one’s honeymoon. It does not augur well for the rest of the honeymoon, since it will involuntarily have an effect. I do not want the hon the Leader’s honeymoon to be spoilt, since I wish him every happiness in that regard. The hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition can put his question now.

You say that we should wait for the report of the Advocate-General. Do you concede that if only one of the seven allegations the hon the Leader of the Opposition said had come to him through these telephone calls, was correct or partly correct, it is a matter of absolute public urgency that that matter be investigated?

The hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition is emphasizing the importance of first determining whether any of those allegations is in fact well-founded. How does he want to determine that? Surely one cannot put the cart before the horse, or allow the hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition or whoever to decide whether it is a valid allegation and then ask for a select committee on that basis. This in fact confirms my standpoint that it is important that the Advocate-General should first complete his investigation and that we can then judge better whether there is substance to any of the allegations. Then this House can decide to appoint a select committee to go further into the matter. In other words, what the hon the Chief Whip of the Opposition has done, has been to confirm my standpoint.

Mr Chairman, in his first speech the hon the Leader of the official Opposition said:

The degree of success a person achieves is determined by the extent to which a person realises his ideals. This is very relative and everyone has to decide this for himself. However, I feel that when a leader of the official Opposition says something like this, it can also be seen from the angle that to a great extent his opponent was successful because his success was determined according to the principles of the Opposition party. On this basis I want to say that the hon the Prime Minister was in fact successful in depriving the Whites in this country of their sovereignty. The hon the Prime Minister was successful in the establishment of a new multiracial Parliament. The hon the Prime Minister was successful because he intends to introduce a multiracial Cabinet. In other words, the success which the hon the Prime Minister has achieved in the eyes of the liberals is that he has progressed along the path of liberal thinking in South Africa. In this debate the hon the Prime Minister has to tell us in unambiguous language why he fought against integration and mixing all these years and has now suddenly turned around and accepted power-sharing, a mixed Government and a mixed Cabinet for South Africa. It is not only statesmen, politicians, psychologists, legal experts and historians who would like to know this when they analyze the action of the hon the Prime Minister, but also the people and the Whites of this country. What possesses a person to change so radically? Did the hon the Prime Minister perhaps never really understand or never believe in the principles which made the way of life of his people meaningful and lent support to our people’s struggle for survival? I wonder why the hon the Prime Minister did not have the courage of a Japie Basson when he rebelled against the standpoints of Dr Verwoerd in 1969 and left the National Party at that stage.

What powers and forces influence a leader to speak so erroneously about his opponents?

The hon the Prime Minister shouted from the rooftops that the Coloured homeland policy of the CP would cost R85 billion. We had to force the facts and background out of the hon the Prime Minister to make the speech he made yesterday. However, there are many things about that report which he has yet to reveal to the people. He will have to tell us when he gave instructions for that matter to be investigated. Who undertook that investigation and what did it cost the State to have it carried out? Has it now become the policy of the hon the Prime Minister to use the public’s money and the Public Service to discuss and study the so-called political policy of his Opposition Parties? Has money already been spent to investigate the policy of the PFP or the NRP? The hon the Prime Minister cannot even tell us what his own policy will cost. When the Afrikaner people began the Great Trek and their struggle for survival in other times, their leaders did not first calculate the costs. However, the hon the Prime Minister has placed a financial price on the freedom and sovereignty of his people.

In the National Party there are no longer conservatives or liberals. They are all liberals. There are two groups of liberals and I want to refer to them. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of the leaders, and then there are also those who bring up the rear, such as the hon the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal. The leaders are in more of a hurry, but those who bring up the rear are following at a jog-trot and both will eventually arrive at the same destination, initially with the NRP, then with the PFP and eventually in the ranks of that group of Whites in Africa who have lost their sovereignty and their countries because they have shared power with Black people and others. The “claim to fame” of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is that he was a “sing song” leader and that he never became anything else! [Interjections.]

The direction the hon the Prime Minister has taken is one that I and the majority of our people consider to be fatal and at the rate of progress the hon the Prime Minister has been making recently, the composition of this House will, within five years, be substantially different even to that which he envisaged.

I now come to what one of the partners of the hon the Prime Minister, and possibly also one of his new Cabinet Ministers in the new dispensation, the Rev Alan Hendrickse said. According to him the Labour Party of South Africa postulates the ideal of a unitary State with “one man, one vote” as its point of departure. They believe in the effective participation of all South Africans, irrespective of race, creed or colour in all councils of the nations at all levels. He went on to say:

The Rev Hendrickse said when I was present that, if the Government did not abolish all segregating measures within the next five years he would walk out of the new tricameral system.

The NP has reserved for the people outside four things that according to them are non-negotiable, namely separate residential areas, separate primary and secondary schools, a separate Chamber in a new tricameral Parliament and separate voters’ rolls. I want the hon the Prime Minister to stand up and say that with regard to those four points he will offer resistance to Coloured and Indian leaders such as the Rev Hendrickse. I do not think he will do so. I think the NP will sacrifice those things as well. There is quite probably a hidden agenda and a time-table for White abdication in the NP, a plan already known to the hasty liberals, to certain members of the Afrikaner establishment and to certain Coloured, Indian and urban Black leaders. That is why a leader like the Rev Hendrickse can be so arrogant as to tell England and South Africa: “Botha must deliver the goodies.” Botha must “deliver goodies” and that is why as far as hon members such as the hon member for Innes dal are concerned, the only thing that is still more American in South Africa than he is, is Marilyn Monroe and “cowboys and crooks”. That is why the hon member for Innesdal is so apologetic, and why he has such a guilt complex, because he is White, and because his genuflexions before Coloured leaders are becoming more frequent and deeper. I know what I am talking about.

I want to tell the reluctant liberals like the hon member for Virginia and the hon member for Mossel Bay that a people is more than the sum total of a group of people living in separate residential areas, whose children attend separate primary and secondary schools and who elect their representatives to their Chamber on a separate voters’ roll. I want to say that a people is infinitely more than that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, most of what the hon member for Rissik has just said is really beneath comment, since it sounded like a gramophone record that had got stuck. We are already so accustomed to him regularly singing the same tune here. To briefly summarize his message, or speech, which amounts to the philosophy of the CP, I want to say that it is this: Do not believe, only fear. He tried to further this philosophy here and he tried to play the prophet.

I am very sorry that there are so few hon members of the CP present today. They have left only two sentries here for the day, and one could be very critical about the quality of those sentries. [Interjections.] I hope that the hon member for Rissik will at least convey certain things I want to say to his leader. His leader threatened me in this House yesterday afternoon. As a result of an interjection, he threatened to send the hon member for Jeppe to Kroonstad. I just want to tell the hon member for Waterberg that I am not easily frightened. I regard it as an insult that he threatened me with a man like the hon member for Jeppe. Kroonstad knows the hon member for Jeppe.

[Inaudible.]

We have known the hon member for Jeppe for many years, even before he entered politics, when the hon member who is making such a noise now was still busy with Corlett Drive. We also know him on the basis of the information the hon member for Benoni gave this House recently concerning what Mr Justice Davidson had to say about the hon member for Jeppe. I do not allow myself to be threatened with people like that.

The hon member for Waterberg launched a rapid attack on the hon the Prime Minister, and when the hon the Prime Minister reacted to it, he practically ran out of the House like a hare with flattened ears. He was not man enough to put his case properly and to listen when he was spoken to. He made certain statements about the signature of the hon the Prime Minister, but he kept quiet about what the author of the book, Mr M C Botha, to whom he referred, had to say. I quote from Beeld of 7 October 1983:

I also want to quote from Beeld of 30 September 1983. Former Minister M C Botha refers to this again, where the report reads:

He went on to say:

That is the leader of a party, a man who was formerly the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal, who comes and tells such blatant untruths in this House. They should be ashamed of themselves. What has the CP done in this debate and in previous debates this year? All they have done is to come and clear themselves in this House of the political treason they have committed over the past two years. When they sneak around among the voters at night, their story is a different story from the one they preach here in this House. The substance of their conversations with the public is the homelands, this utopia they present to the electorate of South Africa. Not one of them has yet had the courage to rise in this House and tell us where they aim to have those homelands and what the financial implications, the borders and the practicability are. The hon the leader of the CP is the big speed cop among them. He shunts people around in this country. He shunts no-Afrikaners to heaven, yes-Afrikaners to hell, and Coloureds and Indians to their homelands. That must stop. The hon member must come and spell out his policy very clearly to us for a change. I do not wish to waste any more time on that party, but I want to ask what hon members of the CP have done thus far to obtain and maintain peace in this country. They have only bedevilled human and race relations wherever they have gone.

All reasonable people in South Africa are seeking peace; not only peace with our neighbouring states and other countries, but also, in the first instance, with one another. The true freedom of all of us lies in mutual peace in South Africa.

In this regard the NP and its Government, under the dynamic leadership of the hon the Prime Minister, has traversed a long, tiring and demanding path over many years. There have been successes, too. We are aware of events and of the progress that has been made. Consequently, there are many things one should like to single out. However, today is the last time the present President’s Council can be discussed under the Vote of the Prime Minister because it falls under that Vote. I should very much like to refer briefly to the present President’s Council. [Interjections.]

At the opening of the President’s Council on 3 February 1981, the State President referred in his opening speech to the difficult and responsible task resting on members of that council. He put it as follows (President’s Council Debates, 1981, col 7):

Deeply conscious of the responsible task awaiting them and to lend momentum to that process of evolutionary development in all spheres of South African society, the President’s Council unanimously adopted the following motion on 6 February 1981:

That is precisely what the President’s Council has done for South Africa. With this motion as a unanimous point of departure, the President’s Council submitted reports containing advice to the State President over the next three and a half years, with far-reaching implications for South Africa. Comprehensive and meaningful reports on many fields were submitted, and an outstanding characteristic of these is the high degree of consensus that went with them, particularly when one takes into account that many contentious and politically sensitive matters were the order of the day.

In conclusion, I should very much like to pay tribute and express our gratitude and appreciation to the chairman of the President’s Council, the Vice State President, the Hon Alwyn Schlebusch. [Interjections.] Few people are destined to make such an indelible mark on public life as he has done. We remember him as chairman of the Schlebusch Commission, as Speaker, and as Minister with various portfolios in the Cabinet. He will also be remembered for the important role he played during the last election of a Prime Minister. The responsibility rested on the shoulders of this dignified, balanced person to be the first chairman of the President’s Council, as well as Vice State President, a task he has performed with so much distinction and success that he has found a place deep in the hearts of people and he has hewn a path to a new and better South Africa for us. We pay tribute to this great son of South Africa, and I would be so bold as to say that when he retires later this year, his place in public life will not easily be filled.

Mr Chairman, the NRP associates itself wholeheartedly with the testimonial which the hon member for Kroonstad has given the Vice State President. We agree wholeheartedly with him, and I am sure there will be some formal occasion in future when we shall be able to place on record our appreciation for the Vice State President’s role and vision. However, there are a few other matters I now want to discuss.

In the first place I want to confirm that the NRP, too, is of the opinion that there have been two major watersheds in South Africa’s political history in recent times. The first is the referendum of 2 November 1983 and the second is the Nkomati Accord. These two events will most probably go down in history as two of the most important elements ensuring a peaceful future in South Africa. As the hon the leader of my party has already done we, too, want to express our appreciation for the role played by the hon the Prime Minister and the Government in the realization of these two events.

Next we should like to play tribute and express our gratitude to the Defence Force, the Police and our other security services, too, which have established and maintained a shield for us behind which it has been possible for us to launch our process of reform here on a basis of peace and to extend the process of peace to our neighbouring states as well. We greatly appreciate that, and consequently I want to subscribe wholeheartedly to the hon the Prime Minister’s standpoint concerning our Defence Force, our Police and our Security Services, as that is a standpoint of this party, too. Without that shield it would be totally impossible for us to continue peacefully seeking solutions to our problems. I also want to add that it is very important that we should take cognisance of the fact that the hon the Prime Minister— and he reiterated this in his speech yesterday—regards it as being very important that the principle of the devolution of power forms part of the solution to the problem of restructuring our provincial system. We find that interesting, and we are very pleased to learn that the hon the Prime Minister again confirmed that standpoint here as a guideline for the Government in the process of restructuring our provincial system. I believe, however, that in principle the devolution of power, irrespective of the kind of structure to be established, in the process of replacing the present system, forms a very important component of the solution to the political problems in our unique kind of community here in South Africa.

†Mr Chairman, that brings me very pertinently to the speech delivered by the hon member for Durban Central. I am not going to re-argue the whole case in connection with the Buthelezi Commission except to say that the majority of the people of Natal will never agree to going into a unitary state with kwaZulu in order to try to find a political solution for kwaZulu. That is not acceptable to the majority of the people of Natal. We believe differently, and we will therefore continue to support and urge Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi of kwaZulu to seek his political future in a confederation or constellation with South Africa. I also want to warn the PFP that they are creating unrealistic expectations in the minds of the people of kwaZulu by constantly stating that the solution for kwaZulu’s problems is to be found in the PFP’s policy as was underwritten by the Buthelezi Commission. Those are unrealistic expectations, and it is dangerous to continue on that path.

Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi, I believe, should reconcile himself with improving his administration, with improving the quality of life of his people, and we of the NRP in Natal will always be ready to assist him and to co-operate with him on a civilized basis in order to try to solve his problems. The solution, however, is not to be found in a unitary system for kwaZulu and Natal. I do not want to take the matter any further.

You are the last one to speak for Natal. There is nothing left of your party there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to pursue that matter at the moment. We can do that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, other important aspects remain which I should like to put to the hon the Prime Minister for his consideration. I believe these to be urgent aspects, and I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister please to tell us whether certain aspects of change in our structure are possible for a democracy in South Africa. These are aspects which I have raised in this House before. However, they are of an urgent and important nature, especially in view of the fact that there is at present narrowing in the process of the extension of democracy to the Indian South Africans and the Coloured South African.

Soon—in August—there are going to be general elections amongst Indian and Coloured South Africans, and the aspects which I want to raise for consideration by the hon the Prime Minister are going to play a very important role in the possible success or failure of those general elections. I believe hon members of the official Opposition will agree with me when I say that it is imperative for those elections to be a positive success so that people may be elected to participate in the new parliamentary procedure in the tricameral system, irrespective of the fact that that tricameral system might not wholly satisfy the policy vision of the PFP. I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition will agree with that. Consequently I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister whether it will not be possible for us to ensure that the conditions of service of the Coloured and Indian teachers be amended in such a way that it would be possible for them to be candidates in the future general elections, without their having to resign their posts. I have raised this matter before under the Vote of the hon the Minister of Finance, but unfortunately we received no reply. I think, however, that it is extremely important for that leadership corps to become involved in the general election on 22 August, especially as far as the Coloureds are concerned. Those people cannot afford to be without an income for two to four months, and this would, in fact, be the case if they had to resign from their posts in order to stand as candidates in the election.

The second aspect which I want to raise is also a very important one, viz the question of the financing of candidates in general elections. We appreciate the fact that we are dealing here with a matter which will affect members of all three population groups—the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa. It is extremely important for us to prevent the Coloured and Indian elections from degenerating into chequebook politics. There are certain negative elements, for example the UDF which has a great deal of money at its disposal—we do not know where it comes from—for making propaganda amongst the Coloureds and the Indians to try to prevent them from participating in the general election. There are other legitimate parties amongst the Coloureds and Indians which do not, however, have those amount of money at their disposal. Consequently we fear that there will be a distortion of the democratic process on 22 August of this year, and in this regard I have a suggestion to make to the hon the Prime Minister.

We believe that the State, too, must make a financial contribution to the preservation and maintenance of democracy in South Africa. We suggest that the State should make an amount of approximately R25 000 in respect of each seat available in an election year, and that that amount be divided amongst the candidates in each constituency in proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by them in the specific election. This will serve as a repayment of the funds spent by them on their election campaigns. I think it is extremely important for us to consider this matter prior to the elections on 22 August, because, as I have said, my fear is that there is going to be a distortion as a result of the parties which are not so strong financially not being able to act effectively in their propaganda and election campaigns.

These are my representations to the hon the Prime Minister. I believe that the two aspects which I have raised are very important ones as far as the positive process of the extension of democracy to the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in being the next speaker after the hon member for Durban North. The hon member is a friendly man—a neat man, too—and I do not want to pick a quarrel with him. It is only a pity that the hon member still finds himself temporarily in the wrong party, but we nevertheless want to thank him very sincerely for having voted “yes” in the referendum. I am in full agreement with the hon member for having taken the PFP to task so effectively. I want to say to him in colloquial English: You are a nice chap! [Interjections.]

While the hon the Prime Minister and his extremely efficient Cabinet and loyal officials are hard at work leading our country to great heights and prosperity, for which all right-minded people are very grateful to the hon the Prime Minister, while they are working unceasingly so that we may live and sleep here in peace, there are despicable elements that are engaged in bedevilling matters and poking their noses into affairs which do not bode well for out country at all. Unfortunately we also find some of these hon things in this hon House. There is one hon member in particular who pokes his nose in the affairs of other constituencies in and out of season.

Order! The hon member may not say that he finds some of these “things” in this House as well. The parliamentary form of address is “hon members”.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The hon member also spoke of “despicable elements” in this House.

Order! I listened attentively to the hon member and found that he was not referring to hon members.

Sir, I seem to have hit something!

Sir, I want to warn the hon member concerned to keep out of my constituency. The hon member will be given an hon hiding if he puts in another appearance in my hon constituency. The Republic has been delimited into constituencies and each constituency has a representative who has been elected to look after the interests of his constituency. If an hon member has problems with the constituency of another hon member, surely he should approach that hon member and discuss those problems with him. After all, this is the way in which educated hon members have to go about it. Sir, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is a wilful fellow. After all the trouble he has caused at Crossroads and Khayelitsha, he is now creeping about furtively (“kruip daar rond soos ’n hond wat vet gesteel het”) in my constituency. On Wednesday, 7 March 1984, officials were paying out pensions to Black people. These payments amounted to between R80 000 and R100 000. At ten o’clock that morning one of the officials reported that there were two White men and a woman outside who were watching them and that the people looked suspicious. Inquiries by a policeman revealed that they were the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and his MPC and another MPC, one Mr Van Eck. They were accompanied by a photographer from the Argus, a smallish girl. In other words, if there were to be any incidents, they were prepared in advance to publicize them. Apparently their attitude was by no means friendly. Indeed, they radiated enmity. They were morose and sulky.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Unfortunately my time is too limited, Sir. The magistrate approached them and asked whether he could be of assistance, because we are decent people there. We have no experience of sneaks and spies. They continued circulating amongst the people for a while and after a time Mr Van Eck asked one of the officials: “Do you always pay out so well?” Then they left, without saying goodbye, still sulking. They made their departure.

What were they after in Worcester? Has the hon member not caused sufficient trouble without extending it now to our decent rural constituencies? The officials in Worcester take great pains to serve especially the aged as expeditiously as possible, and in the case of ill people, there is one official who visits the hospitals in his own car and in his own time to pay them their pensions. At present there are good relations in our area. No complaints have ever been lodged with the magistrate about the payment of pensions. I repeat: What did the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and his cohorts want to achieve there?

I want to warn the hon member. He is playing a dangerous game. He is going to fall into his own trap, and then he is going to look even worse than he does now. Just let him go there.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No. Sit down, you.

Order! The hon member does not want to reply to questions. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to address another hon member as “you”?

Order! I shall be pleased if the hon member for Worcester will henceforth refer to other hon members as “hon members”.

Very well, Sir.

He is a savage in a suit.

Order! Hon members may not call one another all kinds of things across the floor of this Committee. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens must withdraw the words “He is a savage in a suit”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words.

Order! Since I am now having words withdrawn, I want the hon member for Worcester to withdraw the words “Hy kruip soos ’n hond wat vet gesteel het daar rond”.

Sir, I withdraw those words.

We need everyone in our country, but please, not that hon member’s type. We can do without his assistance. Without his assistance we shall achieve a great deal more. I want to say this to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens: My constituency, the constituency of Worcester, is a decent constituency in which decent people live and in which things are done in a decent way, thanks to an efficient Prime Minister and a good Government. We thank them most sincerely for that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon member for Benoni spoke relatively broadly about the question of untruths and so on in respect of Dr Connie Mulder, Die Patriot, etc. I should very much like to focus the attention of the hon the Prime Minister on a matter to which the hon member for Jeppe referred earlier this year, and that is that the following appears in the report of the Erasmus Commission, words written then by Gen Magnus Malan, the present Minister of defence:

Ten opsigte van die feit dat ek die prosedure as oneties en onreëlmatig beskou, wil ek daarop wys dat u sekerlik ook so sou voel indien u Minister in die Volks-

raad in ’n Begrotingsdebat moet opstaan en onwaarhede moet voordra ten einde addisionele fondse te bekom. Ek is nie be reid dat hy in die toekoms weer in daardie onbenydenswaardige posisie geplaas word nie.

That is what Gen Magnus Malan said in respect of the hon the Prime Minister. I should very much like the hon the Prime Minister to give us an indication of whether or not what the hon the Minister of Defence said is true, and if it is true, what the ethical norms of the hon the Prime Minister are in respect of himself and those he presents to others.

The hon the Prime Minister was annoyed because there were not many people in the public gallery during the discussion of his Vote. He tried to blame this on the Opposition, and probably on the CP as well. There is no interest in his Vote, because the hon the Prime Minister has no message for his people, nor has he any message for the peoples of Southern Africa. He is a man who very easily speaks of style and so on.

May I put a question?

No. If one reads the book written about him, one sees that if there is anyone in South Africa who could break up meetings par excellence, anyone who did not count his words at public meetings and who glibly speaks about orang-outang faces, it is he. That is the style he pursued in politics in the past and which he as Prime Minister of this country still pursues. That is why we have speeches such as the one we have just listened to. The hon the Prime Minister is the one who speaks of great peace in South Africa, but I want to remind him of what he said on occasion, viz that he does not want to trample a man when he is down, but then he must not try to get up. That is the style in which the hon the Prime Minister spoke, not only in his caucus meetings, but also outside. I should like to put a question to him, and we will still ask this kind of question many times. He says that the Coloureds are not a nation or a nation in the making. He says they speak our language, they have our culture, out church, they fight with us and work with us. On what basis is he therefore placing the Coloureds in a separate chamber? If they are not a nation, if they speak our language, have our culture, etc, the inference I think I can make is that they are being placed in a separate chamber because the colour of their skin is different, and then the Prime Minister is a pigmentist. If he says that I am a racist, I say he is a pig mentist. He places people apart only because the colour of their skin is different.

The hon member for Mossel Bay is the reluctant verligte, the reluctant liberal. I assume that he listened to the hon the Prime Minister’s speech last year at Hartenbos. I now want to ask him that if the Coloureds are not a nation or a nation in the making, but they speak the hon member’s language, they have his culture, they fight and work with him, on what basis does he keep the Coloureds out of Afrikaans cultural organizations? On what basis does he not agree with Prof Tjaart van der Walt? After all, he is one of the great members of the establishment of the Afrikaner. Why does he disagree with Adv D P de Villiers, whether he be tall or short? Surely he is one of the great philosophers in the NP who says that the Afrikaans-speaking Brown people are part of the Afrikaner nation. Then the hon member must rise and deny those things and tell us precisely what his view of the Brown people is. I have my view, but the time has come for the Brown people to speak for themselves. Let Mr Booysen say what he is and let Rev Hendrickse say what he is.

I want to come to former Minister M C Botha. His present conduct and standpoint on the tricameral Parliament has shocked me. I cannot understand why he is denying what he has written. However, that was not all he wrote and said in his time. If there is one man in this country, apart from Dr Connie Mulder, who has been the most positive in respect of homelands for Coloureds, it is former Minister M C Botha. What did he tell the young people? He said the following:

He went on to say:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can smile about that if he wishes. What did the hon former Minister mean when he wrote and said these things? Many present-day Afrikaners blindly echoed what Dr Verwoerd and other strong leaders said when they were alive, but now that they are no longer here, they blindly echo what another leader says. That is the problem with the National Party. The principle that applies as far as they are concerned is: “Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt”. That is one of the reasons why the National Party is a clumsy body which is still going to fall apart.

You are a former member of the United Party.

The hon member is just using former members of the United Party on his side. If it is not the hon member for De Kuilen or the hon member for Turffontein, it is others. [Interjections.] I do not apologize in this House or outside for pleading and fighting for the sovereignty of my people, nor for fighting the Afrikaner leaders who want to sell out birth right, with everything I have. The hon the Prime Minister has gone too far in his efforts to try to destroy our sovereignty. He has also gone too far in having those leaders in the Afrikaner community who do not want to surrender cursed. I am using his own words now. The hon the Prime Minister can no longer hide the political victims lying in his wake, since they are all rising up.

Indeed, the hon the Prime Minister has let loose the tiger in the Afrikaner nation, and he is still going to experience a great deal of trouble in this country. [Interjections.] Those were the words of the hon the Prime Minister himself. During the by-election in Oudtshoorn he referred to the PFP and said that it is easy to curse the Afrikaner, but that the tiger in him will be let loose. It is not they who have done so, but the hon the Prime Minister. I therefore want to give him some advice, he who so easily gives this side of the House advice: Resign! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, after listening to the speech of the hon member for Rissik and those of his colleagues who spoke before him, one can only reach the conclusion that the CP is just as an academic a little party as the PFP. The PFP has a policy, viz a national convention, but they cannot state it here, since it is a foolish policy. To want to claim that after all the development we have had in this country, we should hold a national convention and nullify all our constitutional development, would be absolutely ridiculous.

The same also applies to the CP with their policy of a Coloured and an Indian homeland. They were given the opportunity in this debate to spell it out. The hon the Prime Minister, as well as the hon member for Um lazi dealt with it. However, the CP did not avail themselves of the opportunity and they remain a mere academic little party until they provide the answers.

The hon member for Rissik also put a number of questions in his speech. He will find the replies in the Erasmus Report.

I should like to refer to a matter which should really fall outside politics, viz the latest Carnegie investigation into poverty. This is an important matter, and it is important that such an investigation be undertaken. It is also important that it be done by an independent organization, since the State cannot bear all the responsibility for such an important matter. This matter must be kept out of politics, however. But now there are strong indications that it is in fact being dragged into politics. These indications are to be found in certain temporary solutions that have been brought to the fore in this investigation and in certain pronouncements that have been made. I just want to refer to one such pronouncement. Dr Boesak said:

Political slogans have never solved these social and economic problems in Africa. You will recall, Sir, that before the Black states to the north of us became independent, the general attitude was: Give us freedom, give us independence, and all our social and economic problems will be solved; we will all become wealthy. What was the result? Absolute instability. In the latest edition of New Africa, a magazine of Black Africa, there is an article with the headlines “Coups without end”. In it is stated that there have been at least 60 coups in Africa: More than 30 countries have had one coup, 14 have had more than one, Benin and Ghana have had five, and Nigeria, which until very recently, was presented to us by the PFP as a very good example, has already had four. Time recently stated that over the past 25 years, 70 leaders in 29 countries in Africa have been deposed or murdered. In the 41 most important countries in Africa, there are only seven that allow an Opposition party, 17 are one-party states, and 17 have military governments.

There has been tremendous poverty, famine and retrogression. Whilst production is declining year after year and infrastructures are collapsing, Africa’s population growth rate is the highest in the world at 2,9%. there are 21 countries facing starvation and 150 million people could starve next year. There is no Black political powerlessness there, there is no White greed there, and there is no separate development there. Why, then, is there this poverty?

The argument will be raised that the states north of us are poor, whilst the Republic is supposed to be wealthy. However, what happens in the richest and most powerful country in the world, viz the USA? Unemployment amongst Negroes is at least twice that amongst White Americans. As far as the breadline is concerned, percentagewise, there has always been three times as many Negroes as Whites under the breadline in America. In September 1983 unemployment among the Negro youth was 56,8% and indications are that there has been a retrogression. Whilst in 1960, 74% of Negro men had employment, the figure in 1982 was 55%. This is the position in the wealthiest country in the world.

What does Prof Jan Sadie, who is probably the leading demographer in our country, have to say about this kind of argument? In two recent articles in The Argus, he says that it is a dangerous delusion simply to ascribe all the social problems in South Africa to separate development. He says that one of the greatest sins of separate development is that it is a convenient peg on which everyone simply hangs economic and social problems in South Africa. As far as the first Carnegie report is concerned, he says that it is very fortunate that the people who were involved in that report did not have such a convenient scapegoat to which they could ascribe all these problems, since if they had had one, they would not have been involved in a solution which encourages the people to solve their own problems themselves.

No, Sir, poverty and unemployment are complex questions and it is simply naïve to ascribe them to a policy which is being implemented in this country. It could be said with a great deal more merit that it is precisely as a result of this policy that there is stability and progress in this country, in contrast with what is happening north of us. I do not want to argue that point, however.

I want to make an appeal to the co-workers on the Carnegie report not to use their investigation as a political vehicle. It will influence their sound judgment and it will prejudice the issue which is near to all our hearts. I want to ask them to co-operate with the Government, since if there is one thing the Government, under the leadership of the hon the Prime Minister, cannot be accused of, it is that it does not give the provision of employment and the economic progress of all our people the highest priority. There are many examples of these initiatives one could mention. For example, there are the various congresses, the Small Business Development Corporation, the Regional development initiative, the Development Bank and the Klue, Riekert, Wiehahn and De Lange reports. I should like to refer to two recent initiatives.

Firstly I want to refer to the recent White Paper on the establishment of a strategy for the creation of employment opportunities. This White Paper is aimed at creating the optimum number of employment opportunities for a given growth rate. It is obvious proof of the earnestness of the Government to give the creation of employment a very high priority. The second, and possibly more important, initiative, is the population development programme, in which is included the national community development strategy. It is a comprehensive strategy which is aimed at improving the quality of life of all people in South Africa. Undoubtedly it is the most comprehensive plan of this nature that has ever been tackled in this country. I want to suggest with the utmost earnestness that it will depend on the success of this plan whether we will be living in peace and prosperity in this country in the near future, say in 20 years’ time, or whether we will be living in disastrous circumstances without food and water. This plan is so important that it should remain above politics. Everyone, regardless of his political inclination, ought to be involved in this plan and assist the Government. He will be helping himself in the process.

Mr Chairman, obviously one cannot differ from the hon member Mr Schutte on the factual history of so many countries in Africa. Those are the facts. I agree, too, that no one can blame the Government for all the problems of South Africa particularly for the problems in respect of unemployment and poverty. However, I think it would be fair to say that there is, in fact, one aspect for which the Government has to bear the blame. I agree that we do have plans today, that the Government does recognize that it has become a matter of urgency but for too long that recognition was not there. For almost three decades ideology and not the economy was the major motivation. The realization of the importance of the economy is fairly new in the political thinking of the NP. Formerly the concept of homelands, the drawing of lines on a map and the resettlement and removal of people were more important than the creation of jobs. That fact has been recognized at last. What is being done now, is right and we support it whole-heartedly. In fact, I believe that South Africa as a whole should support it but at the same time we cannot escape the historical facts. The hon member referred to African countries where coups d’ état have occurred. Two reasons are advanced for the incidence of revolutions and coups d’ état. One is famine and the other is injustice and the maltreatment of people. Those are the two lessons which every country with a Third World population must learn, viz the dangers of famine and the dangers of the disregard of human rights. Those are also the two challenges facing South Africa.

†I am surprised that the Carnegie conference did not enjoy the degree of attention that I thought it would have enjoyed in this debate. However, at that conference facts and information were brought to light of which no country can really be proud. [Interjections.] This is not a political issue. These are facts, facts that we in South Africa have to face, and we cannot change them until the long-term planning achieves results. One of our priorities should be to improve the quality of life of everybody in South Africa. This is, I believe, one of the reasons why the reform programme of the government is so welcome, because it seeks to eliminate the other reason for revolution, and that is the danger inherent in frustration, dictation and domination by others. The Constitutional reform process is one of the two legs. We are now embarked on the other leg, the upgrading of the quality of life of people, and this must be one of the major targets on the road ahead.

I welcome the reaffirmation by the hon the Prime Minister that he recognizes and accepts the difference between national unity on the one hand and party assimilation or absorption on the other, the unity of absorption as opposed to national unity. The issue of the quality of life and the issue of reform are part of the national unity concept, national unity across party lines. We had an example of it this morning. Arising from a question asked by one of his own colleagues, the hon member for Yeoville asked: “And will we also be told about Swapo’s atrocities?”. That is an example of national unity! It does not mean that the PFP is joining the NP, but that was an expression of national unity. I do not know whether the same unity exists in the party itself over that issue, but that is a matter for them to sort out. It was, however, an example of party unity … [Interjections.]

I have made it clear—and I am glad that the hon the Prime Minister and I understand each other clearly on this—that we believe in and will give our full support to a national unity with objectives which we can support in the interest of South Africa, and that both he and I accept that this does not mean assimilation into one political party. It is in national thinking, national objectives where national unity really matters.

In this regard I disagree with the hon the Prime Minister on one point. He spoke of the danger of a multiplicity of parties. I agree that if one has a proportional representation system such as the PFP has, one does get a multiplicity of parties and that can undermine the stability of government. However, that is not the situation in South Africa, and I believe it is important that we should have represented within the political Opposition parties in South Africa all the mainstreams of political thinking One has to have a PFP because one needs a rubbish bin in which to dump the leftwing liberal thinking. We also need a rubbish bin in the form of the CP in which to pick up the dead past and people living in the dead past. One also has to have a moderate and responsible party which will represent moderate and responsible Opposition thinking, as the NRP does indeed. [Interjections.] There is a danger in other countries perhaps—countries with a proportional representation system— but not in South Africa, and South Africa needs a national unity which will bring to it and which will reflect the co-operation among those who have a common loyalty to South Africa although they may differ in respect of major political issues.

The hon the Prime Minister spoke of “on-benullige” and “kleinlike verskille”. I do not believe one can change historic feelings. Nor do I believe that the difference between the Government and ourselves in respect of non-homeland blacks is a minor, unimportant difference. I do not believe the hon the prime Minister regards it as an unimportant difference because, after all, he does not have the final answer himself, this is the sort of example of how, I believe, every party has to make its contribution.

The hon the Prime Minister has invited the hon the Leader of the Opposition to give evidence to the Special Cabinet Committee. I want to state that my party and I would be more than happy to meet with the members of that committee. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is the chairman of that Cabinet Committee, happens to be here in the House now. I put it to him now that we would be more than happy to meet with the members of that committee in order to put forward positive proposals and to make a positive contribution instead of merely criticizing. I welcome the invitation which the hon the Prime Minister has issued to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. We will certainly accept such an invitation, and I hope the hon the Leader of the Opposition will do exactly the same.

I believe the differences between us in connection with citizenship are not minor or unimportant differences. This is an issue that has to be resolved. I am delighted to hear the Government talk about citizenship in a confederal context because I believe that this is the ultimate answer to it. There are still major differences, however. I do not have time to go into them at length. I have previously listed a number of what I call barriers—issues to which, I believe, solutions must still be found. There is no time to deal with them now but I do recognize and know that there is a productive and a constructive role ahead for the NRP. Like the hon the Prime Minister, I have reached the stage in politics in which I too do not care a damn what people think or say about me. [Interjections.] Let the exploiters and the scavengers, the wreckers and the exaggeraters, and the seekers of sensation and headlines have their fun. South Africa requires a dedication to South Africa, which rises above that sort of politics, and this party will continue to make the sort of contribution which we have tried to make over the years.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before I reply to certain matters that were raised here yesterday, I just want to make a brief announcement which is of interest to Parliament.

Because of the nature and scope of parliamentary activities, an increasing need has arisen in modern democracies for a research service which will be able to render a service to parliamentarians. From inquiries made by our missions abroad, it appears that such a service is available to parliamentarians these days in most parliaments in developed and even in developing countries. This service is usually connected or integrated with the parliamentary library. It forms part of the parliamentary administration and is therefore financed by the State. It is customary that in addition to individual members, standing parliamentary committees, the staff of Parliament and parliamentary caucuses may also make use of this service. Two of the best known research services in this connection are the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress of the USA and the Bundestag Wissenschaftliche Dienste in West Germany. The Government has given thorough consideration to the matter and believes that proper research material and a proper research instrument are not readily available to parliamentarians. Especially with a view to the new dispensation and its effective functioning, it has consequently been decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to conduct a proper investigation into, and to report on, the possibility of providing such a research service for parliamentarians. The committee will consist of the following persons. As chairman we have obtained the valuable services of the Vice State President, Mr A L Schlebusch. I thank him for having agreed to undertake this task. Furthermore, it will consist of the Chief Whips of the various parties in this House; Prof D J Kotzé, member of the President’s Council, who also has expert knowledge in this connection; the librarian of the House of Assembly; a representative of the Department of Community Development and a secretary who will be obtained by the committee. The committee will be free to co-opt any person from outside for a particular purpose. The committee wil also consult in this connection with the National Advisory Council for Information Science and Librarianship and the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of the Orange Free State.

†Mr Chairman, several hon members have raised the question of peace initiatives in Southern Africa and have referred to my projected visit to other countries in the near future. All that I wish to state in this regard is that it is too early to make any statements on the proposed visit. If necessary information in that connection will be furnished to the House at a later stage.

*I thank those hon members who have expressed their good wishes to me in this regard.

†Before I deal with certain questions raised by the hon member for Sea Point I wish to point out that our policy in regard to Southern Africa is inter alia based on the following principles: Firstly, that different states with different socio-economic systems and political systems can live together in this world in peace and co-operate where necessary in a spirit of good neighbourliness in pursuit of common interests; secondly, each country has the right to order its affairs as it sees fit and interstate relations, particularly between neighbours, should not be disturbed by differences in internal policies and thirdly, neigbouring countries should refrain from allowing their territories to be used as springboards by subversive elements and terrorists and other powers to interfere in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries. Southern Africa is not the only part of the world which has to cope with the threat of subversion and with the threat of communist-inspired terrorism and the pressure of attempts to create communist takeovers in different parts of the world. In that sense we are carrying the burden of many another free country in the world.

The cause of peaceful coexistence can, however, be served by non-aggression pacts as well as economic co-operation where possible. That is the principle which forms the basis for our endeavour to create better conditions of coexistence in Southern Africa. After having had many talks with other leaders in our subcontinent, I have come to the considered opinion that many countries in Africa are disillusioned with Soviet forms of support. It is interesting to see to what extent steps have been taken by many countries to sever their links with Soviet influence in Africa. In the first instance they experience the same problems that we have of subversion and even of using embassies to spy in those countries and to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries. I think I am quite right when I say that they have become disillusioned with this form of Soviet support or help.

While I say this, let me say that I have also come to another conclusion and that is that many African countries are also disillusioned with aid programmes which they carry out or which they are supposed to carry out with other countries in the world. It has definitely been stated to me in some of the discussions which I have had that they are tired of aid, that they do not want aid anymore because those aid programmes take them nowhere. They say that what they want is co-operation. What Africa needs is not aid programmes as hitherto applied, but expertise, co-operation in the fields of proper utilization of land, usage of water, training to help themselves and co-operation in joint projects wherever possible. That is the direction in which we have decided to travel in our approach to our neighbouring and other countries who want to co-operate with South Africa.

The last principle which we have adopted as a fundamental principle in our approach to other countries is that every country has the right to defend itself against attacks. I dealt with this aspect yesterday when I referred to our security forces.

With these goals in mind we signed the Nkomati Accord, with these goals in mind we took part in the Lusaka discussions and with these goals in mind we signed a conditional ceasefire agreement with the MPLA Government in Angola.

I now wish to turn to South West Africa. As far as this matter is concerned I made a full statement earlier this year on 31 January in this House. I do not intend repeating what I said in that statement. I have no reasons to deviate from what I said on 31 January. It is there for hon members to read whenever they want to know what our point of view is.

The hon member for Sea Point asked me whether I can report any progress. Without going into detail, and I think the hon member with his knowledge of the South West African situation will not expect me to go into detail at this stage—as has been the case in the past, I am prepared to inform the hon the Leader of the opposition and the hon members should they be interested in further facts—I can tell the hon member that we are making progress in our efforts towards a solution. That is South Africa’s view, as well as the view of the united States Government. There is progress, and there is no necessity for us to become despondent about the progress we have made so far. There is also progress as far as the Multi-Party Conference is concerned. Since January continuous discussions have taken place in connection with this whole attempt of finding a solution.

With the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other colleagues of mine we are involved on an almost day-to-day basis with developments in this connection. Only the evening before last the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence returned from further talks in Lusaka. They have reported to me, but I do not think it wise at this stage to divulge in public the details of those discussions. So, all I can say in reply to the hon member is that we are in fact making progress.

Let me say that in general I have a deep appreciation for the way in which the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Bezuidenhout dealt with South West African matters. They did so in a responsible way and I want to thank them for doing so with regard to this very delicate matter. However, I do not think the hon member for Bezuidenhout with his speech really contributed towards a solution of this matter. He criticized, but he made no real contribution to a proper solution. As far as second-tier government in South West Africa is concerned, the Administrator-General instituted a judicial inquiry into certain aspects of the administration, and took effective steps to apply better control. I do not think we should now try to prescribe to the different population groups and parties in South West Africa how they should formulate their ideas of government in South West Africa. I want to read from a statement I made to a certain person about my attitude with regard to South West Africa. I quote:

I have in recent weeks taken note of several statements by Mr Nujoma of Swapo in which he calls for direct talks with South Africa, leading to a ceasefire and the implementation of Resolution 435. The South African Government’s position in this regard is that it does not need to enter into a ceasefire with any party of South West Africa because it has not declared war against any party in the territory, but has acted in a protective capacity to maintain peace so that a political solution can be found and implemented. It is clear to me, however, that any discussions I might enter into with individual South West Africa/Namibian parties, including Swapo, would not be conducive to achievement of consensus and peace in the territory. As the Prime Minister of South Africa I cannot choose sides in the internal affairs of the territory, nor can I allow the impression to be created that I am choosing sides by talking to some parties and not to others. Although my Government is committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 once a firm agreement on Cuban withdrawal has been reached, it must face the possibility that the Cubans may not be withdrawn from Angola for some time to come. Despite the progress which has apparently been made in this regard, the South African Government cannot and will not change its position on the Cuban withdrawal, nor does it believe it will be in the best interests for our region for it to do so. In the meantime it is clear that the people of South West Africa, including Swapo, cannot wait indefinitely for a break-through on the Cuban question. If the political parties, including Swapo, can in the meantime come to some agreement with regard to the future of their country, South Africa will not stand in the way of the implementation of such an agreement.

That is the attitude which we are still maintaining.

*I now wish to refer to the remarks made by the hon member for Lichtenburg, and although he is not here, I want to put certain matters on record here. He said the following in his speech in this House yesterday:

I emphasize this. He went on as follows:

In the first place, I want to place on record that on 21 December 1981, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—my colleague who is present in this House at the moment—sent every Cabinet Minister the amended constitutional principles submitted to us by the five Western powers. In the letter to his Cabinet colleagues, he said that the Prime Minister would raise the subject at the next Cabinet meeting, in January 1982. This was duly done, on 19 January 1982. Every member of the Cabinet had the fullest opportunity of expressing his views on the subject. There were aspects which none of us liked. In fact, I think it is an open secret, and has been one for many years, that I have never liked certain aspects of Resolution 435, and I make no secret of it. Important foreign leaders know that I have had misgivings about certain aspects of Resolution 435 from the very first day. However, I did not accept Resolution 435 in South Africa. That was done during my predecessor’s time. I abided by his decision, however.

The hon member for Waterberg objected to certain aspects of these constitutional proposals by the five Western powers, but he did not take the matter to its logical conclusion. He raised his objections and I raised mine. In spite of the objections which existed on the part of many members of the Cabinet—including myself—and in spite of the fact that not a single member of the Cabinet approved of the constitutional principles in every respect, we notified the five Western Powers that we accepted them.

Our objections are also clear from the letter which the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed to Gen Haig the next day, ie on 20 January 1982, and which he read to the Cabinet. However, it is a fact that the decision by the Cabinet to accept the constitutional principles was absolutely unanimous. The hon member for Waterberg and the hon member for Lichtenburg have also admitted this. If we have indeed allowed ourselves to be manoeuvred into a corner, which I deny, then they are with us in that corner. This Government has not deviated one inch from that standpoint. So we could not have been manoeuvred into any corner which the hon members are now referring to as though they were not in that corner. In fact, none of us is in any corner, because the decisions about the future of South West Africa are not taken by us in this house.

Do hon members know what struck me yesterday while listening to the hon member for Lichtenburg? He presented himself in this House as Koos de la Rey redivivus. Listening to him, it occurred to me that Koos de la Rey lost his life because he did not want South Africa to occupy South West. Now Koos de la Rey redivivus comes along and he wants us to dictate to South West what its political future should be. The real Koos de la Rey died because he had said that one should not change one’s neighbour’s borders.

We do not interfere with the leaders of South West Africa itself, and they do not expect us to interfere either. They themselves have requested us not to interfere. On 13 April this year—only about a week ago—the National Party of South West Africa issued a public statement which had been approved at a meeting of their executive committee, and in it they said, among other things, that they appealed to the political parties in the RSA and seriously warned them—

That is the request of the people whose destiny is at stake. I think it is no more than responsible that we should now appeal to politicians in South Africa to concern themselves with their own affairs and to afford the people of South West Africa an opportunity to come to agreements among themselves in the interests of all the population groups of that country. It seems to me that whereas South West is in some respects a pleasant place for hunting game, there are politicians now who have nothing to occupy them and who want to go and start a different kind of hunting in that territory.

On 31 January this year, I read to hon members in this house from a statement which the Multi-Party Conference had sent to me on 24 January. I must remind hon members of what I read on that occasion. It is contained in a speech I made during the no-confidence debate. In the statement, they—this included the NP of South West— said the following:

The NP of South West signed this. That is all I want to say about the matter. I hope that we shall now show great responsibility in allowing the people of South West to set their own house in order.

Further questions have been put to me about Khayelitsha. Arising from interjections made by the hon Chief Whip of the PFP yesterday, I asked to be provided with the relevant figures. There are a total number of 13 320 houses in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, while the total number of inhabitants is 130 000. The over-population is 50%. There is a housing shortage of 5 882 units.

You did not build any houses, that is why.

That is precisely the point. The hon member for Pinelands has put his foot in it. One cannot build any more houses in this area for the large number of inhabitants. [Interjections.]

You had a moratorium not to build more houses.

That is not the point. There is no room available in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu for the building of any more houses. [Interjections.] Does the hon member want us to build vertically into the sky, or in Pinelands, perhaps? After all, he objected once to the fact that the people were walking through Pinelands.

You are talking nonsense, and you know it.

I repeat: The percentage of over-population is 50% and there is a housing shortage of 5 882 units.

The housing shortage in Langa is 740 units, in Nyanga it is 3 658 units, and in Guguletu it is 1 484 units.

The hon member also asked me a question about private property ownership in those areas. There is no private ownership.

That was not the point.

No, wait a minute. Give me a chance. I then said that these were subeconomic houses. Strictly technically speaking, I was wrong, because they are actually rented houses. What I meant by that, however, was that they were houses which had been built by the State and were let on a sliding scale. In that sense, therefore, they are subeconomic. The point is, however, that provision must be made for the large number of Blacks in the Cape Peninsula, a large number of whom are legally here in terms of section 10. It is as a result of this that I took a personal interest in the matter in order to find a place where we could establish a community in an orderly manner once and for all. I should like to read to the House what the Cabinet has resolved in this connection. On 10 April 1984, we received certain reports. I want to read the resolution and place it on record in this way, so that it may be available to hon members of the Opposition as well. It is quite a lengthy resolution. Perhaps it is advisable that I should read it in its entirety. The resolution reads as follows, inter alia:

Werkgewers wat reeds onherroeplik (kontraktueel of fisiek) verbind is om huisvesting vir werknemers te voorsien, toegelaat moet word om behuisingsprojekte te voltooi op voorwaarde dat daar bewese getuienis is dat daar met die kon trak en die konstruksie ’n aanvang ge neem is voor die Kabinetsbesluit van 15 Maart 1983 ten opsigte van verdere ver digting; tweedens, dat daar ingevolge die huisverbeteringsadviesprogram van die Stedelike Stigting op selektiewe grondslag in die bestaande dorpsgebiede by huise aangehou word en wel om dit vir die gesin meer bewoonbaar te maak. Daar moet der halwe daarteen gewaak word dat daar nie aanbouings gedoen word, byvoorbeeld om loseerders in te neem nie; derdens, dat diegemeenskapsaak, biblioteek, kliniek, pos kantoor en handelsfasiliteite te “Nuwe” Kruispad voorsien word; dat akkommoda sie in groepsverband vir voorskoolse kinders voorsien word; dat voorskoolse ak kommodasie te “Nuwe” Kruispad ook voorsien word.

These are the houses to which the hon member for Groote Schuur was referring yesterday, when he asked: “Did you visit the area lately?” My reply to that is: Yes, I have seen those houses.

The good houses?

Yes. The resolution goes on to say:

[Interjections.] I do not know whether they are angry about this. However, I read on:

Skiereiland huisvesting sal kan bied nie, die Departement van Samewerking en Ontwikkeling ’n verslag oor die digt heidsnorme ten opsigte van behuising aan die komitee vir oorweging moet voorlê.

I have read these resolutions, Sir, so that hon members may know what they contain. Then they will also realize in what a responsible way we are approaching this matter. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Prime Minister whether it is the intention that the families presently living in the 1 300 houses in Langa and Guguletu—and I am not talking about those houses that are overcrowded—will eventually be removed to Khayelitsha, or will they be able to remain there permanently?

I do not envisage that this will happen in the foreseeable future, but if a properly developed township with all the necessary facilities is developed at Khayelitsha, and when people have been removed from the overpopulated areas, and if it then still appears that there are better facilities in that community development, it would be wise to move this small community to that area gradually. From a planning point of view, Nyanga and Langa could then be incorporated into the Coloured residential areas.

So they have no choice?

Surely someone has to plan. [Interjections.] We cannot allow the hon member for Pinelands to plan our national affairs. That would be disastrous. [Interjections.] The hon member can protest as much as he likes, but as long as I am Prime Minister, I shall not allow him to govern this country. He will simply have to accept that. [Interjections.] He can forget about that, just as he can stop his troublemaking. [Interjections.] I am rather tired of the activities of that hon member and the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I am sick and tired of their activities. [Interjections.] They are destroyers of every attempt to serve people in this country in a positive way. [Interjections.] It is high time this was said to him. He hides it all under his black garb. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I come now to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He made some rather rash remarks to begin with in his speech about the oil question this morning. However, I must say that it was clear to me from the final part of his speech this morning that he was exercising restraint. After all, he discussed the matter on merit once again. I should like to do the same.

Are you going to settle his hash now?

Order!

Oh, Mr Chairman, surely the hon member for Sea Point knows that when it is necessary to fight here, I am quite …

Sandton!

Oh, very well, I should prefer to say nothing about the hon member for Sandton. I do not wish to waste any time on him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Prime Minister is replying to questions put to him by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that hon members and I would do well to listen to the discussion between the two hon leaders. I therefore appeal to hon members to be quiet and to listen. If there are any hon members who are not prepared to comply with my request, they are free to leave the Chamber. The hon the Prime Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

As I have already said, the hon the Leader of the Opposition made certain remarks in the final part of his speech which convinced me that he wished to return to dealing with this matter in a responsible way. However, there is only one thing which I still find rather inexplicable. Allow me, Mr Chairman, to get it off my chest first. When the hon the Leader of the Opposition visited me in my office—and, of course, in his letter to which I have referred here—he expressed his satisfaction with the steps I had taken. There is no doubt about that. In that letter, in which he expressed his satisfaction with what I had done, he did not indicate that he insisted on the appointment of a select committee on this matter. That is the one thing which I find curious. What has happened since then? After all, he says that he has not obtained any new facts. He has no new facts available to him; he has only received anonymous telephone calls. Now he wants a select committee of this Parliament to be appointed. To do what? To investigate anonymous telephone calls? [Interjections.] But, Mr Chairman, we have nothing to submit to the select committee. After all, I have referred the documents submitted to me by the hon the Leader of the Opposition to the Advocate-General. He says that he does not have any new facts at his disposal, except for anonymous telephone calls. What am I to submit to the select committee if I do not submit those things to them? I find this very strange. That is why I asked the hon the Leader of the Opposition in my speech yesterday what had happened to him. Then he got angry.

You can put before the select committee …

No, wait a minute. Remember what the Chairman said. You may soon find yourself outside the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition once again what has happened to him. I want to ask him whether, when he looks to the left and when I look to the right, we are not perhaps getting warm. [Interjections.] Are we not getting warm, perhaps? I believe that the hon the Leader of the Opposition understands what I mean. [Interjections.] There is only one man in this House who is not listening now; he prefers to pretend that he is not listening.

Harry! Harry! [Interjections.]

Order!

Furthermore, I should like to put it to the hon the Leader of the Opposition at once that I appreciated the fact that he came to me. In fact, I told him so. He knows I received him courteously. I believe we talked to each other like two right-thinking people. I also believe that I should repeat here one of the things I said to him. I said to him, among other things, that there were two spheres of life in which there were many crooks—the one was the arms trade and the other one was the oil trade. I did not say that everyone in the arms and oil trade was a crook. I did say that there were many crooks in those two industries. I have a great deal of experience of one of them. Fortunately, I succeeded in keeping the crooks from my door; at least, as far as possible. I did so by establishing a body through which I was able to exercise control over it. I also believe that I succeded in doing so in the interests of South Africa. I told him that I did not wish to suggest that there were “crooks” in the oil trade. However, I also said to him that I had ordered an investigation on the basis of the facts at my disposal. I also had the co-operation of my colleagues. I want to say here this afternoon, in the interests of truth and in the country’s interests: Not one of my colleagues is under suspicion. Very well. The hon the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he agrees with me. Not one of them is under suspicion. In the second place, not a single senior Public Servant is under suspicion. There is no evidence to indicate that that is so. I said to him that the investigation that I had ordered had yielded no evidence of corruption. However we referred certain aspects of the Salem incident to the Attorney-General for his attention. We referred certain matters to other governments. That I have already stated here, in reply to a question. Moreover I shall submit certain information to the Advocate-General.

Only after the hon the Leader of the Opposition had raised the matter again here did I make my speech yesterday. I had not intended referring to it again. What does the Act relating to the Advocate-General specify? Parliament passed that Act. Why did Parliament pass that Act? It was not done before the Information scandal but after it, and it was done on my initiative. On my initiative this Parliament created an instrument whereby it was able to have certain practices investigated, viz—and I now quote from section 4 of the Advocate-General Act:

1. (1) If any person has reasonable grounds to suspect that—
   1. (a) public moneys have been or are being dealt with in a dishonest manner;
   2. (b) Any person either directly or indirectly has been or is being enriched, or has received or is receiving any advantage, in an unlawful or improper manner through or as a result of any act or omission—
      1. (i) in connection with the affairs of the State or of an institution, a body, an association or an organization referred to in the definition of “public moneys” in section 1;
      2. (ii) by any person while he is performing service as an employee of the State or of an institution, a body, an association or an organization referred to in the definition of “public moneys” in section 1; or
      3. (iii) at the expense of the State or an institution, a body, an association or an organization referred to in the definition of “public moneys” in section 1;

What, then, may the Advocate-General investigate? He may investigate unlawful acts and he may investigate corrupt acts. Say, for argument’s sake, the Advocate-General were to find that a corrupt or unlawful act had been committed. In such a case he could inform this Parliament. If it is a confidential report—this is what the legislation provides—Parliament may appoint a select committee in order to thrash out the matter further with one another. Therefore a select committee is a possibility.

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

No, I am not going to answer further questions at this point. My time does not permit it. Sit down.

He has very little power …

In the second place, Mr Chairman … Sir, the hon member for Groote Schuur never makes speeches in this Parliament because he is not capable of doing so, but he bothers other people when they are speaking. Say for example the Advocate-General were to reach the conclusion that unlawful or corrupt acts had been committed and he could prove it, and he could inform this Parliament, for which he was created, and then this Parliament could submit them to a select committee if they were confidential, or alternatively they could discuss it in public. However, say for example he were to reach the conclusion that there had been no corrupt or unlawful dealings but that there had been negligence. If that is his finding, then in terms of section 42(5) of the Exchequer and Audit Act we have the right to place that negligent act in the hands of the Auditor-General without delay. In that instance, too, the report of the Auditor-General would come before the select committee on Public Accounts, which is a Select Committee of Parliament. Therefore, what the hon the Leader of the Opposition is requesting has not been excluded. Parliament has created an instrument. I accepted the responsibility, in the words of the hon Leader of the Opposition, because he knows that I am opposed to corrupt practices and that is why I took immediate steps. I say that he ought to stand up now, or merely say by way of an interjection, that he is still as satisfied as he said he was in his letter. [Interjections.] I must make haste. This is at the same time a reply to the hon member for Yeoville who contributed his share and who is now looking up. [Interjections.]

I always look up when you say something important.

The hon member for Yeoville put a further question to me. He wanted to know what I meant by the appeal I had made that all balanced people who were patriots and thought in a balanced way about the affairs of South Africa should as far as possible be brought together in one political party.

You did not say one political party, but one political organization.

But surely a political party is a political organization.

Your own words were …

No, do not let us split hairs. A political party is an organization. This is the first time in my life I have ever heard that it is not an organization.

But you drew the distinction.

I said that I did not regard party unity as national unity. However, I also said for the sake of good relations among Whites and for the sake of good relations with the other population groups, all level-headed South Africans, and here of course I am referring to us in this House—and I shall state my standpoint with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians in a moment—because the constitution we accepted does not provide for one House, but three Houses.

Do not get angry; I have read it.

But then the hon member must not persist in interrupting me. There is far more for him to explain than he has intimated.

Far more to explain—about what?

Order! I also request the co-operation of the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman there is no rule against interjections. If the hon the Prime Minister is guilty of provocation, I have to interrupt him. [Interjections.] He is being provocative.

Order! I should be obliged if the hon member for Yeoville would not allow himself to be provoked and would afford the hon the Prime Minister the opportunity to make his speech.

I say that the NP is such an organization. I quoted this later in my speech, when I referred to what our programme of principles stood for. I call the entire House to witness that I did that, and I shall do so again now. The party states its objectives and then it says:

That is the basis on which I want us to co-operate with one another in this country.

We have three Houses, and in each of the three Houses political parties will obtain representation, and that is specified in the constitution. There will be a majority party and possibly minority parties; that depends on the outcome of the election. I say that it is in the interests of South Africa that among the other population groups, too, bodies should come into existence, if they do not already exist—I think that there are already some— which, broadly speaking, are in agreement with the governing party of the Whites of South Africa. Together with those parties I shall try to promote the welfare of this country in a spirit of sound co-operation.

In one organization?

Oh, my dear friend, one can explain something to a person, but to a fool one can explain nothing. [Interjections.]

I should like to quote the hon the Prime Minister’s words to him, viz: “Ek sê weer dat ek graag sou wil sien dat alle gebalanseerde Suid-Afrikaners bymekaar moet kom in een politieke organi sasie, waar ons sonder party-oorwegings met mekaar kan debatteer wanneer ons oor vraagstukke moet beraadslaag”. Does this not mean that there must be another political organization in which people from various parties can come together to hold debates?

No, that is not what I meant. Moreover, immediately after that I addressed the hon member for Durban Point and told him that I did not think we should have a multiplicity of parties. I also spoke to certain hon members of the CP and said that I regretted that some of them had left us.

But that is merely a matter of courtship; I am speaking about … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Yeoville is a courier par excellence, one who courts all opinions in this House. I do not wish to take issue with him on a personal basis, but we know how he goes about things. Sometimes his courting in an effort to stay popular is offensive. I have told him in the past that he wants to be the corpse at every funeral and the bride at every wedding.

Always snide and petty.

But he must not mess around with me. Nor must the hon member for Bryanston mess around with me, because then we can really fight one another at a different level.

Always snide and petty.

Order!

The hon member for Umbilo raised a very important matter, for which I want to thank him. He referred to the fact that the Communist Party of South Africa has its headquarters in London and that the ANC also has its headquarters in London. All I wish to say in this regard is that the British Prime Minister, on various occasions, has come out with strong statements against terrorism throughout the world. I agree with that. As a matter of fact, I supported her in public. I hope that our attitude in connection with the ANC headquarters in London will also be taken into account by the British authorities. I have nothing more to say at this stage, but I appreciate his contribution.

The hon member also referred to the President’s Council and thanked them for the work they had done. I think I can join with him in paying tribute to the chairman and the chairmen of committes and all the members of the President’s Council. They are highly respected citizens of South Africa, who worked very hard and who brought out reports of great value to South Africa. These reports will be studied by all responsible people, and I hope that they will be dealt with in a responsible manner.

*I want to thank the hon member for Helderkruin for his contribution on the concept of self-determination. The hon member for Johannesburg West provided a very sound explanation of our managerial system, for which I thank him. The hon member for Ermelo proved once again that he is fully acquainted with the antics of the CP, and I shall leave it at that.

The hon member for De Aar is not present, and therefore I shall not reply to him; not that it would make any difference.

As an authority on agriculture, the hon member for Gordonia made a fruitful contribution for which I want to thank him.

The hon member for Vasco rightly referred to the power South Africa has become. There is one fact that history will have to recognize, and that is that the power South Africa has become is due to the co-operation between the Government and the private sector over a number of years, and in recent years in particular. If South Africa is a power in the future it will be due to that co-operation and those consolidated efforts.

The hon member Mr Schutte referred to a study on poverty in South Africa that was undertaken, and I want to say a few words about that. I find it remarkable that a Carnegie investigation of poverty should be carried out in South Africa, when the great continent of Africa is dying of hunger, when people are wasting away in their millions and starving little children lack the basic food needed to keep body and soul together. Why is this investigation being held in South Africa? The Government has taken cognisance of this research unit, Shawco, attached to the University of Cape Town. This investigation, which was ordered and financed by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, is known as the Second Carnegie Investigation into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa. It seems to me that people do not know what has been going on in Africa over the past number of years.

Moreover, a conference was held at the University of Cape Town last week on the findings of investigations in a wide variety of fields. I wish to state very clearly that the Government does not now, and has never, stood aloof to the problems which give rise to and arise out of poverty among the people of this country; by no means.

At the Carlton Conference of 1979 I confirmed once again that it was the express aim of the Government to improve the material welfare and quality of life of all our people, and I still stand by that. This aim was confirmed once again at the Good Hope Conference, and on that occasion I pointed out that the policy of regional development and industrial decentralization was specifically geared to promoting the prosperity of the people of our subcontinent irrespective of borders, and that we had also introduced training programmes. The other day I perused once again the books and reports available which indicate how we are succeeding in providing people with in-service training and education, specifically with a view to escaping poverty.

As recently as on the occasion of the signing of the Nkomati Accord on 16 March I reiterated:

As a Government we stand by that and we are working towards that. We are concerned with that every day, and we have experts who advise us in this regard. We have some of the best experts advising us, and we also have the assistance of our universities and of voluntary organizations which assist us in combating poverty. However, if there is one thing I hold in contempt, it is when poverty is, in effect, glorified by way of squatter camps and when people hand out blankets once, during winter, and then set themselves up before God as the saviour of people. For that I have only contempt. Obviously, as yet we are nowhere near a success as regards achieving our objectives satisfactorily in this regard. The international economic conditions over the past number of years, as well as the state of our own, economy, together with the natural disasters that our subcontinent and, indeed, the whole of Africa have experienced over the past number of years have hamstrung everyone’s efforts at economic upliftment. The whole of Africa has suffered as a result of these problems. Time magazine of 16 January has inter alia the following to say about this:

Then the article in Time goes on to discuss the Republic of South Africa as follows:

However, it is we who have an investigation by the Carnegie Commission. Either the world is mad or some people are mad. However, that still does not mean that South Africa is without socio-economic problems. It does mean, however, that the question of promoting prosperity in South Africa, may not be seen in isolation from the realities of Southern Africa and Africa, and in my opinion this was, unfortunately, the case to a large extent as regards the Carnegie Conference at the University of Cape Town last week. This view is supported by the unfortunate incident which occurred last week during the conference when one of the speakers, Mr Charles Simkins, an economist at the University of Cape Town, made mention in his speech of his finding that there has been widespread and substantial improvements in the incomes of the majority of the inhabitants of the national states since 1960. The standpoint was expressed by inter alia Dr Alie Sitas of Natal University that a series of micro-economic studies had blunted the contemplation of poverty, whereas other congressgoers pointed out that caution was necessary in interpreting economic statistics which could on occasion easily present a misleading picture. In his reply to this criticism, Mr Simkins said that he was not casting doubt on the level of poverty among Black people and that ways should be found of eliminating poverty more rapidly. However, one does not find this on one side only. There must be a willingness to eliminate poverty. It is a pity that an occasion which could really have been used to carry out an in-depth search for answers to our real problems in South Africa and in the rest of this poverty-stricken continent, to a large extent degenerated, due to political overtones and ideological prejudices, into a denigration of South Africa’s political system.

According to The Argus, in summing up the conference the director of the investigation, Prof Wilson, expressed the following viewpoint:

The Government will continue with its endeavour …

Mr Chairman, I just wish to ask whether the hon the Prime Minister is aware that not a single official of the Department of Health and Welfare was invited to attend the conference, and that they were not welcome there.

There you have it, Sir. Oh really, surely we are accustomed to this kind of thing. It runs like a piece of old copper wire through our history. Moreover, it is a dirty old piece of copper wire. All these efforts have been made to call South Africa into question. We shall survive it. South Africa will survive it. We shall survive the very worst efforts of people of this kind. I thank the hon member Mr Schutte for having raised the matter.

The hon member for Kroonstad dealt effectively with the sly political practices of the CP.

The hon member for Durban North put a question to me about the issue of Coloured and Indian teachers. The Cabinet gave the matter very careful consideration but we are unfortunately unable to depart from the rule. There are too many arguments against it. We shall not be able to accede to that request.

I believe that I have now replied to all hon members. I want to conclude by referring to one final matter. It has been pointed out that we are on the threshold of a new dispensation. We shall have another opportunity to take our leave of the old dispensation during this session. This is not the time to do so. However, I wish to make certain general remarks. The new dispensation can only work if people make it work. It will not work if people do not make it work. In other words, if the members of this House, those of the House of Representatives and those of the House of Delegates do not wish to make it work, then it will not work. If members in this House do not want this House to work, it will not work either. Sometimes it is an uphill job to make it work. Sir, you have experience of that. [Interjections.] I think that among the majority of Whites in South Africa there is a desire to make the new dispensation work. That desire was overwhelmingly expressed on 2 November last year. We cannot get away from that fact. That was the biggest pronouncement in the history of South Africa, and as far as the Whites are concerned it is one with wider implications than at the time of the declaration of the Republic. The question is whether we, as representatives of the White voters, will, like democrats, subject ourselves to that expressed will, and whether each of us is disposed to make it work. However more than mere dispositions will be needed. It will require a degree of sacrifice from each of us. It will require adjustments from each of us. If we do not have that desire, it will not work. It is as simple as that. If we do not have it, we certainly cannot expect the House of Representatives of the House of Delegates to have it. Here, for the first time in their lives, people are gaining the opportunity to have a say, at a high level, in those things that affect their lives. Are we going to make this works? I cannot give hon members the reply to that question. Each one of us will have to answer that question. If the underminers and the creators of mistrust and the opportunists are permitted to play the role they want to play, it will not work. One of the finest Biblical books one can read, even if one does not believe in God, is Nehemia. It is a story of positive attitudes, of creative work against the powers of destruction. If we do not get into our heads the attitude that we in South Africa want to build and that we want to have people playing a part in civilization and in Christian values and norms, then this is not going to work. If we want what is weakest in us to set the tone, then this effort will fail, and if it fails there is no one in this House today who can spell out the consequences to us; not one of us could do that. If the efforts to achieve peaceful coexistence on the basis of the preamble to our constitution do not work, then I know that there is a dark road ahead for South Africa. However, I believe that there is a better road ahead for South Africa, and I believe heart and soul that South Africa can become a country of good hope for each of its children. In the time in which it is given to me to lead the Government I shall try not to be found wanting on this road to a country of good hope.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, having disposed of the important Vote of the hon the Prime Minister, we now turn to the more mundane aspects of Parliament’s work, namely the discussion of legislation. The Bill before us affects the deeds registries of South Africa. The PFP as the official Opposition supports the Third Reading of this Bill because it brings about an important change in the registration of 99 year leases which affect the Black peoples of South Africa, as it gives them a more permanent right to property which they occupy and may own. This Bill will now transfer the venue of registration from the Black Commissioners’ Courts to the deeds registries. The PFP accepts that principle.

However, one of two sour notes have been introduced in the debate with reference to this legislation. The one sour note is in regard to the right to disestablish certain of the existing deeds registries in South Africa. Those deeds registry offices have been operating for many, many years. They are therefore well defined. Their future is also entrenched in terms of the Deeds Registries Act. The slightly sour note introduced by way of this amending Bill is of course the transfer of that right to the Minister. That is the transfer of a right that has always been in the hands of this Parliament in relation to the establishment or the closing of deeds registries. That means that the Minister will now have the right to establish or close deeds registries. By that power now being transferred to the Minister the country will be largely left in the hands of one man insofar as the opening and closing of deeds registries are concerned. Furthermore it is also left to the Minister to decide whether he will consult with the Association of Law Societies and the people involved in the registration of deeds in a particular area. I submit that it could have serious consequences if the Minister should arbitrarily decide to close a particular deeds registry. Closing or transferring a particular deeds registry, I submit, will take much longer than the six months which we sought by way of an amendment that was rejected to have inserted as the minimum period in respect of notice of any such closing or transfer of a deeds registry.

Apart from that aspect, Mr Speaker, there is also the question now of how deeds in terms of the 99-year leasehold system will now be registered by deeds registries throughout South Africa. I do believe we are faced here with some sort of problem. We have to take note of what the registration of these deeds will entail. In this respect we are of course indebted to the Venter Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment. That commission dealt inter alia with matters affecting this very legislation. In this respect I should like to quote briefly from the first report of the Venter Commission. On page 18, in paragraph 4.7, one reads:

That means that over the next 14 years deeds will have to be registered in respect of these 2,8 million dwellings referred to in the Venter Commission report. I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister will appreciate that this is a very considerable number. A quick analysis in this regard will show that something like 156 000 deeds a year, or more than 1 300 deeds a month, will have to be registered by deeds registries throughout the country. We have already had some discussion in connection with the ability of deeds registries to cope with the existing volume of work. At present it seems that deeds registries throughout South Africa are understaffed and can therefore not cope with the existing volume of work. In this respect we do take into account what the hon the Deputy Minister stated earlier in connection with salary increases in respect of the staff of deeds registries, and also the improvement of their conditions of work. We are also delighted to hear that the hon the Deputy Minister is willing to accede to our request of the employment of national servicemen to assist in deeds registries.

Apart from the ability to cope with the additional workload, one also has to see to it that the proper mechanics are followed by deeds registries in order to carry out their work effectively. In this respect I wish to refer to their second report with particular reference to page 57 at paragraph 5.16. The first point I wish to deal with in this regard relates to regulations in so far as leases are concerned. Paragraph 1 states:

Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister will comment in respect of this paragraph and let us know whether any changes in this regard are contemplated. Paragraph 3 reads as follows:

This could apply to the surveying of the land in respect of which leasehold property is to be registered. Paragraph 4 reads:

This applies directly to the leasehold properties to which we are now referring.

I want to say once again that we are happy that this registration is now to take place in the various deeds registries, and this is provided for in paragraph 5. The final paragraph I wish to quote in this regard is paragraph 9 on page 58 of the report which reads as follows:

This paragraph relates directly to the establishment of new deeds registries as well as the disestablishment of registries. In this regard I feel that we must consider the finding of the Venter Commission. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to re-examine clause 8 of the Bill which deals with the schedules. The present schedules are being repealed and new schedules will be enacted which will define new geographical boundaries. I want to urge the hon the Deputy Minister to give consideration to trying to retain the existing deeds registries wherever they may be but, by means of clause 8, to amending the schedule so as to amplify the geographical areas to ensure that they still fall under existing deeds registries and will therefore not be affected by any disestablishment that may take place; in other words, that we retain the existing deeds registries and create an extension by including all geographical areas in those schedules.

Let me give an example in this regard. Let us take the case of Soweto which is a very large area indeed in which a large number of registrations are going to take place. In this respect, the deeds registry in Johannesburg could be retained and then perhaps a sort of satellite deeds registry could be opened in Soweto simply to register the leases to Soweto itself.

This brings me to another point I wish to raise and which I must mention at this stage. I know that we are discussing the question of leasehold properties and, although it is not directly involved, the point I wish to make is quite frankly that we should concentrate rather on freehold property. Inasmuch as the registration of leasehold property is the same as that of freehold property, we should concentrate on the granting of freehold title. This has the advantage of being non-discriminatory—it applies to everybody else in the country—and it is also easier to work with freehold title as far as the registration of bonds, servitudes, hypothecs and so forth involving conveyancing are concerned. We have also read in the Press about the sale of some of the 500 000 units which the Government is now promoting in order to provide housing more urgently for those who need it in the lower income groups. We understand that this is not going as well as it should. I want to suggest that perhaps the reason why it is not going so well is the fact that people are tied down to leasehold property. If the Government were to agree to the sale of freehold property, I think they might just find that there will be a bigger demand for those houses and that people will be more keen to buy them. I think if the hon the Deputy Minister would give consideration to that, he might achieve a double purpose of promoting the sale of those houses of which there are 500 000 available and of which approximately 200 000 are available to Blacks. Let us do something meaningful to the people of South Africa, to the ones who need those houses most.

I think I have covered most of the points arising out of this, and perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister will respond to some of the arguments I have raised. By and large and because of the main principle underlying the change in the registration system, we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hillbrow advanced a few arguments in connection with which I should like to associate myself with him and support him. In the first place, I associate myself with him in that I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for saying that an attempt will be made to obtain national servicemen who can be of assistance in these registries. I think this is a positive step and it can contribute to speeding up the activities in our deeds registries. The hon member also requested that, where possible, existing deeds registries should be retained while it might be possible merely to adjust the boundaries on the basis of geographic circumstances. In this respect I also support the hon member. In these two respects, in my opinion, the hon member made a very positive contribution and I support him.

As far as other parts of his speech are concerned, I cannot support him, but before I get to that I just want to say that it is an old concept and an old idiom to say: “A conveyancer never lies; he just certifies.” In future, as far as the correctness of the transfer of title deeds is concerned, the onus will in many cases rest on the conveyancer and not, as was the case in the past, on the deeds registry, which has to ensure that its correctness is indisputable, and for that reason the old idiom that “a conveyancer never lies, but just certifies” might have to be exercised with far more discretion.

In this connection I want to refer specifically to the fact that in this new concept we have a change in principle as far as the transfer of title is concerned. I am quoting Mr Willem du Plessis, the chairman of the Attorneys’ Association in Pretoria, who said:

The actual crux of the matter is the following:

When one reads this, one realizes that here we are placing a far greater responsibility on the attorneys’ profession. This is perhaps partial justification for the cost aspect which is frequently either not understood or not appreciated by the public. I want to reiterate the importance of the fact that in future, particularly in view of the astronomical figure mentioned by the hon member for Hillbrow in connection with new deeds of transfer which will have to be dealt with in the next five or 10 years in respect of the various population groups, this will become a significant factor and that in my opinion the Minister will have to give specific attention to reducing it. At the same time, however; I want to make it clear and emphasize the fact that the public has to be aware of the responsibility borne by the attorneys’ profession and, in particular, by the deeds sections of the attorneys’ profession. They are removing the risk from the public and bearing it themselves. The security of title given to the public by the profession has never been appreciated by the population of our country. Because the responsibility of this profession is being increased, I feel that it should be compensated accordingly. When we consider the simplification of the system and the reduction of costs, we have to remember that we are dealing here with a highly specialized profession which will always have to have an equitable cost base.

One of the fundamental objections of the Opposition parties is the matter of the power now being conferred upon the Minister to close deeds registries and open new registries without consultation and without the approval of Parliament. As far as existing registries are concerned, there is, for example, a registry in King William’s Town and another in Windhoek. This in itself is a reason why the Act should now be changed. A change will, after all, have to take place with regard to the registry in Windhoek, whereas I believe that King William’s Town is in an area which no longer justifies a separate registry. I am not losing sight of the fact that I have just said that I agree with the hon member for Hillbrow that the Minister should not close existing registries without further ado. The hon member for Hillbrow pointed out the enormous amount of work which would have to be dealt with by the new registries in future. I believe it would be a good thing if the hon the Minister had the power to take quick decisions if he is not able to wait six months or longer until Parliament reassembles. The old United Party always said: “Ministers must make crisp decisions”.

†In order to enable Ministers to make crisp decisions, there must be legislation to enable them to make crisp decisions.

No, you just want to be autocratic, that is all.

Do not be ridiculous. What the hon the member in fact advocated with his amendment was to limit the Minister as to the people he has to bear in mind. Its purpose was to limit the people he has to consult with. That is exactly where the NP differs from the NRP.

You want to be autocratic.

No, on the contrary.

*The amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point concerned a period of six months. The amendment of the hon member proposed a period of six months and that was all. The amendment moved by the hon member Mr Theunissen was that only the attorneys’ profession should be taken into account. If these two amendments are read together, the responsibility of the hon the Minister becomes far narrower than it would be in terms of the legislation.

It was interesting to note the support given by the hon member for Soutpansberg to the amendment of the hon member Mr Theunissen. He tried to rip my argument to shreds by asking how I came by the ridiculous idea that people such as estate agents or surveyors should be taken into account. What he said was not that important, but the consequences are. If he maintains that my argument is incorrect, and that only the attorneys’ profession is concerned with this and only they should be consulted, it would mean that neither estate agents—and I think everyone would admit that they have an indirect interest in this—nor surveyors, who also have an indirect interest, would have to be consulted. It would mean that the public in that area, who have even less of a direct interest in it than estate agents or surveyors, need not be consulted at all. If the surveyors and estate agents are not consulted, but only the attorneys, then no one else, in other words the public, is involved. The hon member for Soutpansberg’s argument in support of the amendment of the hon member Mr Theunissen is, therefore, incorrect. In fact, I want the Minister to take all interest groups in the area into consideration. I therefore do not want matters to be narrowed down as proposed, inter alia, by the amendment of the hon member for Durban Point. The entire spectrum, irrespective of how long it takes— some cases will take less than six months and others will take longer—has to be taken into account and I feel it should suffice to say that the Minister has to consult all interest groups irrespective of the time or circumstances.

If this is the case, I want to test the arguments of hon members who allege that the Minister is being given too much power here. If he were to take that decision without consulting all the necessary bodies and without taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, any member of the Opposition or any other member would still have the opportunity during the next session of Parliament to oppose the decisions and actions of any Minister, and specifically the Minister’s actions in terms of this legislation, and to ask why he did not take certain people into account and why he did not act in a certain way. The right of criticism of a Minister’s behaviour is, therefore, not being curtailed. The Minister will always remain responsible for any actions in this connection. For that reason, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, this is legislation which could contribute to rapid, proper and thorough decisions being taken in the face of accelerating needs in this specific connection, as they ought to be taken. They will remain subject to the criticism of parliamentary debate. For that reason, I strongly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the Conservative Party supported the Second Reading of this amending Bill. However, even at that stage, we had expressed our reservations about the proposed amendment to section 1 of the principal Act.

Our standpoint was that the proposed amendment would have the effect that the Minister concerned would be able to establish or do away with deeds registries without consulting anyone. What is more, the amendment will have the effect that the Minister, merely by way of proclamation, will be able to determine or amend the registration and other acts performed by the deeds registries. These powers which are now being given to a Minister are far-reaching and drastic powers being vested in one Minister exclusively.

Precisely on account of the proud record of the South African registration system, which is well-known all over the world, a maximum guarantee is given to individuals and institutions in respect of their title deeds. All these years the registration procedures in respect of which we have such a proud record have been in the hands of the highest authority in our country, viz Parliament. Now the summary removal of these powers from Parliament and their transfer to a Minister is being envisaged. Anyone with a thorough knowledge of the many important registration procedures and other procedures determined in the Deeds Act, procedures which profoundly affect the personal and business rights of individuals and juristic persons, will understand why there are misgivings in the legal profession as regards giving the Minister such extensive powers.

We do not want to elaborate on this any further, but we do want to place on record that we believe that these powers should continue to be vested in Parliament. We understand that especially in matters of exigency, it is sometimes necessary to delegate powers to the Minister. Nevertheless, in the proposed amendment to section 1 of the principal Act before us, time ought never to be such an important factor. The decision, therefore, to establish do away with a deeds registry is a serious matter that should not be considered or decided about overnight. An over-hasty decision should not, therefore, be taken in this regard. Thus there are adequate reasons why this matter ought to be dealt with calmly by means of legislation, for this would afford the community or those concerned in a particular area the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of such a step at length in the House of Assembly through their parliamentary representatives, especially if it is also proposed to change or abolish registration procedures or other procedures. In this instance one is more than ever convinced that the least the hon the Deputy Minister can do is to allow this to take place in consultation with the professional group which, through this very Deeds Registries Act, is intimately concerned with the registration procedures which have to take place in a deeds registry. The legal profession is the only agency which is able to serve the interest of the community efficiently …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he agrees with the hon member for Soutpansberg that in the case of this type of legislation, or any legislation, no outside interest groups or population groups should be consulted but only the professional group which is absolutely directly involved?

I do not think the hon member for Vasco is interpreting correctly what my colleague the hon member for Soutpansberg said. That is not what I heard him say; nor is it the way in which he explained the particular matter to me either.

What do you yourself say?

I agree with my colleague the hon member for Soutpansberg that the people who should in fact act here are of course the members of the profession, who are prepared for it. Clearly, however, that is not all he said.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon member for Rissik that I detect a tendency in this House for members sometimes to speak with their backs turned to the Chair. I certainly do not regard this as a matter of respect that is due to me personally, nor should hon members regard it as such, but the Chair must be respected. If the hon member for Rissik replies to a question by the hon member for Vasco, he must address the Chair while doing so. That is much more orderly.

I shall be happy to oblige. It is just that it is sometimes difficult to speak to someone without looking at him. However, I accept the ruling. I want to tell the hon member—I trust him behind my back—that I do not think he understood my colleague, the hon member for Soutpansberg, correctly.

Because the amendment we proposed was not accepted by this House we do want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, in his reply to the Third Reading, to place on record his undertaking that he will consult with the legal profession when it comes to the establishment or closure of deeds registries or when he proposes to amend or abolish procedures of registration or other procedures followed in deeds registries.

Another very important result of the proposed amendment to the Deeds Act is that a much larger trained staff will now be needed to man all the registries and sub-registries. Therefore, in the interest of all those people, that is to say, present as well as future deeds registry staff, we want to express the hope and confidence that the hon the Deputy Minister and his department will see to it that a sufficient number of well-trained men and women will be available to carry out this major task. All modern and supplementary facilities should be available in order to bring all the registers in the deeds registries up to date without delay and in particular, to expedite the delivery of freehold and other relevant titles.

Sir, I thank you for your patience. I had to present a matter here that is not really in my field, but I did so to the best of my ability.

Mr Speaker, I have sympathy with and understanding for the task the hon member for Rissik had in making a speech which he had not prepared himself. I must say he did not fare badly. It goes without saying that we cannot agree with what he stated here as the standpoint of the CP because there are contradictions in what he tried to state here. To maintain that the deeds registry has a proud record and that that proud record will be spoiled if the Minister has the right to close or establish offices, does not hold water. The success of a deeds registry is determined by the staff in that registry, and it does not matter where it is situated. We on this side of the House have every confidence in the staff that are at present manning the deeds registries, as well as those who will man existing and new deeds registries in future.

I want to reiterate that the main aim of this Bill—this was also the motivation for the legislation, which is now going through the Third Reading Stage—is to facilitate the registration of property in terms of the 99-year leasehold system. Home-ownership is a necessity for any breadwinner and for any reasonable employee. If a house is registered in a person’s name, this affords that person a greater degree of security. That is why I want to take this opportunity to appeal to Black residents of towns and cities in the Republic to take advantage of these opportunities to purchase their own homes. We know that at present they are still reasoning that rented housing can be obtained at a lower price than leasehold housing. But such rented houses are not their property. To a great extent rent is money wasted, particularly when it is spent over a long period. On the other hand leasehold payments are a capital expenditure, and this contributes to the acquisition of a property, in this case the acquisition of a house.

I again want to advocate—as I did in the Second Reading—that employers become involved to a greater extent in providing their employees with leasehold rights. I believe the time has come for us to give intensive attention to methods to get employers more involved in providing their employees with these rights. In order not to waste time, I shall not pursue this matter, because in the discussion of the Minister’s Vote we shall again have the opportunity to discuss this aspect. However, I should like to hold this discussion to try to find ways to make it easier and more attractive for employers to afford such assistance.

Subsidies on Black housing cost the State millions of rands, and in my opinion we must now try to break free of such subsidies. With a view to the expected extension of leasehold rights—I am getting back to what the hon member for Rissik said—if everything goes as planned, it is essential for more deeds registries to be opened in future. However, we are not leafing with the immediate closure of one office and the opening of another, or a process which will repeat itself every week or every month. This is, after all, a process which will take place over a long period as the need arises. However, we want to give the hon the Deputy Minister the opportunity, when such needs arise, to be able to open such offices immediately. We therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill, and we wish deeds registries throughout the country everything of the best. We also want to repeat our sincere thanks for the excellent work they have been doing over the few years.

Mr Speaker, we too will be supporting the Third Reading for much the same reasons as the hon member for Hillbrow has put forward and therefore I do not propose to go into great detail on those same points. However, I must again refer to the attitude of the hon the Deputy Minister in not accepting and the adamancy with which in fact he opposed the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point.

I know the hon member for Vasco made the point that we want Ministers to be able to make crisp decisions and that if things are done in this way, the responsible Minister can make crisp decisions. However, if one really wants crisp decisions one should get a dictator and then one would be assured of crisp decisions being made. I do not think that that is what the hon member had in mind, but my contention is that that is really not an argument, to remove all the democratic processes merely to be able to make crisp decisions. As far as I can see, in terms of time, the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point would not have taken any more time than is likely to be involved now in closing down an office. However, it would at least have allowed the people who were to be affected to express their point of view. He did not even ask that the Minister should have to comply with a petition or anything of that nature. He merely asked that the Minister should take into account local opinion. I am afraid that I still find myself somewhat at a loss to understand his adamant opposition to that amendment.

In so far as the points raised by the hon member for Hillbrow are concerned, there is one I should like to touch upon. That is namely the question of deeds themselves. This is of course not directly involved with this Bill but it does relate to deeds offices. It also relates to the point raised by the hon member for Durban Point during Second Reading. That is that I believe that some action recently taken in Durban—or proposed to be taken in Durban—is going to put the question of leasehold in bad repute, particularly leaseholds that are handled by Governmental authorities. That is of course the proposal which the Durban City Council has made, enormously to increase the leasehold values of land on the basis of having sold a property somewhere in that vicinity and moving up the leasehold values by anything up to 1 250%.

That is of course a Prog City Council.

Well, it is a PFP controlled city council. That is true. Possibly, however, that will not last for long. [Interjections.] The position is that we have on the market at the present moment something of the order of 300 000 houses being sold to our Black South African citizens. What is going to be their attitude when they find that a Governmental body, such as a city council, completely out of the blue decides to move up the leasehold values of their land. Although those people may think they have bought it they should think again because the leasehold value may be moved up to such an extent that those people will have to pay enormous premiums in order to be able to remain in the houses they have built and which they have paid for. This, of course, to my way of thinking, is absolutely iniquitous and puts the whole concept of leasehold into disrepute. I believe that in so far as residential properties are concerned there should be no question at all of authorities being able to take this sort of action.

I believe that when it comes to the registration of leaseholds in respect of residential properties there should be a fixed value, and the lessor of the land should be able to have reasonable rentals on an escalation basis of current escalation values of land; not an increase on the basis of the so-called willing buyer or willing seller when the use of the land changed as in this instance. In this case this land that has been used for residential purposes is now sold to an organization who has turned it into a very substantial commercial enterprise. These people are obviously happy at paying an enormous amount because they will make a big business profit on that property. To me, it is quite wrong that ordinary residents of other properties should have to pay enormously increased rentals as a consequence.

When the hon member for Durban Point raised this issue I was quite shocked to hear the response of the chairman of the management committee in Durban, who said, and I quote:

Remember, Mr Speaker, that the hon member for Durban Point is the member of Parliament for that constituency, and that he has the responsibility of looking after the interests of his constituents. The chairman of the management committee further said, and I quote him again:

Superficially that sounds fine. Nobody can quarrel with it. However, is there any hon member in this House who will tell me of any rented properties that have increased in value over the past 10 years, residential properties I mean, from R8 000 to R102 000? This is what is being asked for residential properties—from R8 000 to i R102 000 rental per annum. To my mind this is quite incredible because these people in all good faith accepted the fact that a Government body was the leaseholder and that they would not be driven into the ground by a hardline, ruthless businessman, so they bought those flats on leasehold. Most of them used their life savings to do so because most of the flats are occupied by pensioners. There are approximately, so I am given to understand, 5 000 people living in the affected flats. I cannot vouch for the exact number but I understand that it is something of that order. These people were previously paying a flat levy which they could afford on their somewhat meagre pensions because many of them went on pension a number of years ago. They were paying levies of from R110 to R130 per month and they are now going to have to pay an additional amount of from R150 to R190 per month. These are the additional amounts they are going to have to pay. They will therefore find themselves in a position where they will either have a roof over their head or starve. Who is responsible for this? I believe, Sir, that it is no other than the Durban City Council.

May I please ask a question?

Yes, of course.

Could the hon member for Umbilo give us an indication of the way in which he believes the value of those leasehold properties should be assessed for the purpose of rates? I am referring specifically to the ones in Durban.

Mr Speaker, I can tell the hon member that they have already been assessed for the purpose of rates. They already have a rating value. In terms of the provincial ordinances of Natal there has to be a revaluation every five years. I am not referring now to the question of the revaluation of rates. I am referring here to the revaluation of rental for this leasehold property. It is not the same thing. I have no quarrel in regard to a reasonable valuation for rating purposes, but this is not related to rates at all. This is a question of rental. The hard, wicked landlord is saying: I want more money for the use of my land, not for the services that I am putting on it.

I sincerely believe that there must be some sort of guarantee as far as the registration of deeds is concerned so that at no time after that registration can rents for the use of that leasehold land be increased by more than a certain percentage which is related to the normal increase in land valuations. Business and commercial rates should have nothing to do with residential land because that is in fact what is happening here. For the chairman of the Management Committee of the Durban City Council to just shrug it off and say that the hon member for Durban Point is just making politics out of it shows gross irresponsibility. As far as I am concerned, I hope to see his not remaining in that office for very much longer. One must encourage people to remove such heartless people. Furthermore, to make the statement that they have just been brought into line after a 10 year revaluation and then increase the rentals by 1 200%—I am referring here specifically to one block of flats, Dunelands— once again shows gross irresponsibility or otherwise a lack of humanity but certainly a lack of knowledge in regard to what is going on.

So, we in these benches will support the Bill, but we do most sincerely hope that the question that has been posed in respect of this almost extortion in respect of leasehold properties will be looked into to ensure that this cannot happen again and that it cannot happen now and that these people will have some redress.

Mr Speaker, having listened to the hon member for Umbilo, I am convinced that he must live in an area where the city council is a horrible council.

Agreed!

I wish him success in getting rid of that council, but at the same time I do not see the relevancy of that horrible council in this particular legislation.

*We have now come to the Third Reading of the Bill and must discuss its consequences. During the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage repeated reference was made to what the, consequences of the Bill would be. Firstly there is the organizational arrangement that in future the Minister will be able to establish or disestablish deeds offices. This results in a simplified form of action, without any principle being at issue. I think it is actually essential, because to burden Parliament with something like the closing down of a deeds office would really, in my view, mean overloading Parliament with detail that I would really prefer to see in the hands of the Minister.

We also noticed that the Bill does, in fact, aim at making practical arrangements. It is prescribed, for example, how an area should be determined. We also find that the chief registrar need no longer be an active registrar of deeds. I think these are practical arrangements that we should all welcome because they will contribute to the better functioning of our deeds offices.

The only new principle—and even that is not altogether new—involves the fact that new provisions are being inserted about how expropriations should be recorded. This refers specifically to the Cape, where divisional councils are now being merged and are obtaining properties that were not previously registered in their names. Here I have in mind the divisional council of Port Elizabeth which has merged with the divisional council of Alexandria to form the Diaz divisional council. Properties can now be transferred to the Diaz divisional council.

There is also the question of the registration of leasehold, and in my view that, more than anything else, is what makes this Bill necessary. If one takes into account the delays that arise as a result of correspondence, over long distances, about the registration of deeds, and one thinks about how many such deeds will have to be registered in future, one cannot but say that the legislation is essential and should be welcomed.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members very sincerely for their support in this Third Reading debate. I do, however, also sincerely want to thank all hon members who participated in the discussions during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage. Although there were differences of opinion in the Committee Stage, in my view the discussion of the Bill was a thorough one, and I want to thank each and every hon member who participated very sincerely, though perhaps without specifically mentioning them by name.

†The first aspect mentioned this afternoon was the principle decision which had to be taken concerning the question of leasehold as opposed to freehold. During the course of the Second Reading debate I said that this decision had been taken and that we decided on leasehold rather than on freehold. That decision has been taken and I am of the opinion that that decision cannot now be discussed or altered. I think the other reasons given, amongst others that it is because it is leasehold and not freehold to explain why so few people actually applied are not completely correct. Many other factors are involved, which we are trying to solve and which are not related to this Act, but which are being discussed with the Department of Co-operation and Development, to see how he can solve the practical problems in terms of registering leasehold.

*The argument in connection with the establishment and disestablishment of deeds offices has come to the fore once again. This matter was pointedly raised during the Committee Stage and several hon members have now done so again. I think that one matter that perhaps did not come strongly to the fore during the discussion of this Bill is that the Bill is before the House as a result of the introduction of leasehold for Blacks. This is going to mean a tremendous number of title deeds having to be registered in deeds offices. At this stage it is uncertain where the majority of such registrations are going to take place. It is therefore extremely difficult to determine whether the proper place for a deeds office would be A, B or C. In the light of the registrations that will be taking place and the increase in the volume of registrations, the Bill will enable us to cope. That is one specific reason why is must be possible to establish deeds offices on this basis.

The closing down of registries is another aspect of the clause, and during the Committee Stage we discussed the procedure to be adopted by the Government in this connection. I think the hon member for Rissik said that we should give the undertaking that we would consult the Association of Law Societies in regard to this matter. I am prepared to state now, however, that if such closures take place, we shall indeed be doing so and shall consult the Association of Law Societies. We shall also consult other interested parties. I think I can rightfully give this undertaking, because it is the Government’s intention to adopt this procedure.

In the Committee Stage there was a misunderstanding between me and the hon member for Durban Point. I said that in handling similar matters, the Government’s intention or approach was to consult. The hon member then said that I contended that this was contained in the Act. I referred to my speech in Hansard, and I must concede that the hon member is right. I did say it was contained in the Act. I apologize for that, because I had not intended to say that it was contained in the legislation. I just want to put the matter right by stating that the hon member for Durban Point was correct in pointing this out to me. As far as this matter is concerned, however, I do believe that this is the right way in which to deal with it. I accept the fact that if problems crop in future, amendments can be made to the legislation. We shall then again have recourse to Parliament. In the light of the urgency of introducing leasehold, and the large measure of uncertainty involved, I believe that the procedures prescribed in the Act are the correct ones.

Mr Chairman, in this respect I want to point out something to the hon the Deputy Minister. In my speech I said that there would be 1 300 registrations per month, but in actual fact there will be 13 000 registrations per month.

I think the hon member for Hillbrow quoted from the report of the Venter Commission on the expected building of houses. I hope the hon member will not hold it against me if I say that on the one hand hon members of the Opposition blame hon members on this side of the House for not saying how poorly the registration of leaseholds is progressing, yet today the hon member says there will be 13 000 registrations. I hope he does not hold it against me for making such an oblique reference to it. [Interjections.]

When one is dealing with any demographic projections—as in the case with the Venter Commission’s projections—one is not saying there will, all in all, be 13 000 registrations per month at this stage, because not all will necessarily opt for leasehold.

There is another aspect I want to point out to the hon member, and that is that the places where such registrations will take place, and the concentration of people in the process of urbanization, are not wholly predictable at this stage. On that basis we accept that there will be a tremendous increase in the registration of leaseholds. In that regard we must specifically be free to establish registries so as to achieve maximum efficiency. I have given the hon member and the House the assurance that if it appears to be necessary to amend this legislation at a later stage, we shall be prepared to do so. It is in that spirit that I have replied to that aspect.

We are talking about the ability of the deeds office to cope.

I was not referring to whether the deeds office had the responsibility or whether it could handle the amount of work. I was referring to the principles involved in the establishment or disestablishment of a deeds office.

I should like to refer to another point raised by the hon member for Hillbrow and also other hon members, and that is that if these deeds offices are established and the work has to be done, there must be adequate staff and infrastructure to handle it. That is a very valid point to which hon members referred. I accept, however, that the department, the officials and the Chief Registrar of Deeds will directly focus attention on this. He would, depending on the work, also have to attempt to cope with it. Because of the uncertainty about the amount of work involved, one can accept the fact that in the process there could be certain brief periods in which problems would arise. If they did arise, we would try to solve them as quickly as possible. I hope I have now answered the hon member’s question.

†I do not know if there was anything else, raised by the hon member for Hillbrow, to which I did not reply.

*The hon member for Rissik asked me for a number of undertakings. One of them I have already furnished during my Second Reading speech. In regard to the other undertakings he requested, I do not think it fitting to react to them at this stage.

Do not speak for too long, because he is not listening.

If he is not listening, I shall turn my attention elsewhere.

I now want to refer to the NRP’s standpoint.

†They raised certain arguments, of which one concerns sectional titles and leasehold. It is specifically stated in clause 9 that sectional titles are excluded.

*The whole argument, in which Durban is specifically involved, relates to sectional title lawsuits and the problems involved.

Not sectional titles.

It concerns section title rights that people have there, and that is the problem he referred to. Clause 9 of this Bill specifically excludes sectional titles and provides that they cannot be registered in terms of this measure. I therefore do not want to involve myself any more deeply in the private debate and controversy surrounding the NRP and the Durban city council as far as this specific matter is concerned. I accept that they will solve the problem for themselves. I think I have also dealt with the question of the offices being closed.

In conclusion I want to thank all hon members heartily for their co-operation. At this stage I want to say that after this Bill has been dealt with here, I shall be writing a letter to the law society to explain the matter to them as well, so that they will specifically know what is involved here and how the matter has been dealt with. This will then eliminate any misunderstanding. I also want to thank the officials involved in this matter for the work they have done. I also want to wish the officials at the deeds offices every success with the difficult task they will be faced with when it comes to implementing this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, when this debate was adjourned, I was replying to speeches which had been made by hon members. There are one or two speeches left to which I should like to react. As the hon member for Gordonia said, liquor does not tolerate abuse. I think I would be doing an injustice to the speakers and to the cause if I did not reply fully to the points that have been raised.

The hon member Prof Olivier was very much concerned about the fact that this new flavoured wine would not be wine at all. I just wish to tell him that in the requirements for the labelling of the product, a very clear distinction is drawn between wine and flavoured wine. We specifically lay down that it should be very clearly indicated on the bottle that it contains flavoured wine.

Therefore the consumer will know exactly what he is buying. What is more, because the flavoured wine will not comply with the definition of wine as it is contained in the Act at the moment, it will not be possible to sell it in ordinary supermarkets like other wine. It is a matter which my colleague, the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who deals with that aspect of the wine legislation, will have to consider at a later stage. However, this is the position for the time being.

Then the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who suported the Bill, raised one or two matters. I regret that he is not here at the moment.

He is coming.

In that case I shall first deal with the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, who I see is not here either. In any event, I shall first conclude my remarks on the matter raised by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South. He said that when we placed this flavoured wine on the market, it would take the place of something else. This may happen, but we actually expect the flavoured wine to be an additional product which will not necessarily lead to a drop in the consumption of other products. I think he made the point that alcohol distilled from cane spirits could also be diluted and flavoured. Here we have a completely different product. Here we have an agricultural product, while we have always regarded alcohol distilled from cane spirits as an industrial product. If one looks merely at the cost aspect of liquor, we should probably ask Sasol to produce alcohol for us. They tell me that it is possible for them to make drinkable alcohol at a few cents a litre. Surely that is not the intention. In the product which is to be marketed in terms of this legislation, the contents will be 98% wine. The additions will be natural products and the wine will be very subtly flavoured.

I notice that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has returned to the House, and I should like to deal with one or two points raised by him, for the sake of the record.

†He had problems with, I think, clause 10 of the Bill in terms of which the manager of the KWV is appointed as a kind of controlling officer. In terms of the Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, the KWV is already responsible for the control of all distilling and good wine on all premises where such wine is made or found. The KWV is therefore in a good position to exercise the very necessary control over flavoured wine. A number of functions are undertaken in the line of control by the KWV and the nature of control actually covers a wide area. Among others, I can tell the hon member that they control the fixing of a minimum wine price, with the approval of the Minister, of course. They also control all purchases between producers, wholesalers and licencees. They see to it that the minimum wine price is maintained, and all payments are made by the KWV.

*Under certain circumstances, the bulk importation of distilling wine and brandy is also controlled by the KWV. In times of insufficient production of wine, the KWV also controls the distribution of the available wine and spirits among buyers. When there is an overproduction of wine, control over the production is exercised by the KWV by way of a quota system, which involves quite drastic measures. Physical control is exercised by it over all wine manufactured at the producer level and received, processed and distilled by wholesalers. In terms of section 20 of Act 25 of 1957, the KWV also exercises control with regard to the certification of wine or wine of origin at the producer level. This new function of control over flavoured wine is very closely connected with this function which I have just mentioned, namely that they supervise and control the certification of wine. The KWV is quite well equipped to perform this function, therefore. The KWV has the necessary infrastructure and basic information to excercise control over flavoured wines as well.

The hon member also requested that a handbook on the measures applicable to the wine industry should be made available to small farmers. I want to point out to him that it is actually dangerous to prepare a condensed version of such measures from an official source, because the finer details would inevitably have to be omitted, and this could eventually get the producer into trouble. However, there is a close relationship between the KWV, which is a co-operative, as the hon member knows, and the other co-operative sellers and the wine farmers who operate within a fairly small area. Moreover, the KWV and its members are continually in contact, and anyone who desires any information concerning the rules and regulations is always welcome to approach the public relations department of the KWV.

That is actually the problem.

I do not quite understand what the problem is, because the KWV is fully accessible.

†Anyone requiring information about certain rules and regulations is welcome to go to the KWV, and they will explain it to him in detail. In my view such a procedure is preferable to a condensed pamphlet being issued, which merely gives a broad outline and does not go into detail. Of course, one could also obtain such a voluminous document that one would probably not even read it.

Mr Speaker, does the hon the Deputy Minister not agree that should one go to the KWV to study all the regulations, naturally over a period of time certain of those regulations could easily slip one’s memory? If one could go to the KWV and have a full discussion with them and at the same time be given a guide, which obviously cannot be complete but could serve as a reminder, does the hon the Deputy Minister not believe that that would be an advantage?

Mr Speaker, I agree that it could be to the advantage of the producer, but I must tell the hon member that the KWV sends circulars to all producers at various times of the year in which they are reminded of the various regulations and also when certain forms have to be completed. I believe that the KWV really has a very good public relations department which keeps in close contact with the members and also provides the wine farmer with useful information from time to time. However, no harm can be done in putting such a suggestion to the KWV.

*The hon member also made certain remarks about the ban on the exportation of South African Riesling wines. I believe it is important that the hon member as well as the House should take cognizance of the fact that problems are being experienced all over the world with the use of the name “Riesling”. This is not a problem which is unique to South Africa, therefore; it is actually a world-wide problem. An investigation is being conducted at the moment by a commission of the EEC, and the SA Wine and Spirits Exporters’ Association—an association which was formed fairly recently—has approached them through official channels and laid the Riesling matter before them, be; cause it is a matter of concern to us, just as it is to other wine-producing countries. This EEC Commission is investigating this matter at the moment. I may also tell the hon member that not all exports of our Riesling wines are prohibited. We are still exporting some of that wine, under the names of Weisser Riesling and Rhein Riesling.

Mr Speaker, does the hon the Deputy Minister not consider that it would be wise within South Africa itself not to market—I am not talking about export now—as Riesling the product of the Crouchen Blanc cultivar?

Mr Speaker, the name Riesling has become so renowned in South Africa—as of course also in other countries—that it will be rather difficult to change that now into Crouchen Blanc. I do not think the public will really appreciate such a change.

No, I want my Riesling.

Just listen to that, Mr Speaker. Well, whether it is called Riesling or not, the public have become accustomed to that type of wine. [Interjections.]

*Mr Speaker, I do not think there would be any objection if any wine producer wanted to market a wine under the name of Crouchen Blanc. It could even be marketed together with Riesling. We are continually engaged in a process—I am saying this merely for the sake of intest—of changing names and producing new varieties. Up to a few years ago we spoke of French grapes. Now we no longer speak of French grapes, but of Palomino. In the past we used to speak of Steen. Now, of course, it is Chenin Blanc.

We Karoo farmers do not understand all these big names. [Interjections.]

Yes, I think it does create considerable confusion among the public. However, I believe that the ideas expressed by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central are interesting. I also believe that he means well. We thank him sincerely for his support of this measure. I appreciate the fact that he came here specially to listen to my reply because I had delayed it so that he could listen to it personally.

Once again, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to all hon members who have participated in the debate.

It seems to me that “a Rosé by any other name” is really applicable in this instance.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs K M Andrew, B R Bamford, Dr M S Barnard, Messrs R M Burrows, C W Eglin, G B D McIntosh, E K Moorcroft, Prof N J J Olivier, Dr F van Z Slabbert, Messrs M A Tarr, H E J van Rensburg and A B Widman) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

One of the essential elements of a well-planned agricultural industry is the orderly and well-organized marketing of produce. Local and international agricultural conditions, marketing methods and requirements are, however, constantly subject to changing trends, and therefore it is also necessary to adapt the statutory provisions applicable to such matters to the changing circumstances, and in some cases to protect the competitive position of South African products abroad, relative to similar products from other countries.

†The primary purpose of the amending Bill before the House is to rationalize the Act in order to provide for the present and, where possible, the future needs of the industry concerning the marketing of agricultural products. Certain amendments are being effected to provide for practical and administrative problems encountered in the application of the present provisions of the Act and to amend designations which have become obsolete. The aim of some of the amendments is to remove ambiguities in the provisions that have created difficulties in the interpretation thereof.

*Furthermore, the Bill contains certain adjustments to administrative provisions in the Marketing Act, 1968, that proved to be problematical. For example, no provision is made in the present Act for the Director-General of Agriculture to impose conditions in regard to the issuing of permits for the import and export of agricultural produce, or for seizure thereof in cases of illegal import or export.

Mr Speaker, I am satisfied that the amendments being proposed in the Bill are a step forward towards better control and smoother functioning of the marketing of agricultural produce in South Africa, and that they meet with the approval of all sectors of the agricultural industry and organized agriculture.

Mr Speaker, this Marketing Amending Bill has come before the House at a time when enormous increases in the price of agricultural foodstuffs are being experienced. For example, Sir, we have must heard the news that there is to be a fairly massive increase in the price of maize. Given the present unstable position prevailing in the maize industry, the hon the Minister had little option but to increase the price. Had he not done so the industry could well have found itself in a state of total collapse. It must be accepted, though that this kind of palliative action does nothing to solve the underlying problems of the maize industry, most of which are unrelated to the drought. The consumers of the country will almost undoubtedly be expecting some kind of explanation from the hon the Minister concerning his long-term strategies for the industry. The consumers who will be most directly affected will be the economically under-privileged and at this stage increased subsidies to keep prices down appear to be the only short-term solution.

With reference to the Bill I should like to point out that it has often been stated that agriculture in South Africa rests on three legs: Organized agriculture, the co-operative movement and the Marketing Act. In dealing with the Bill and in dealing with amendments to the Marketing Act, 1968, we are therefore dealing with one of the most important and sensitive of all agricultural matters.

The Marketing Act has been under fairly constant fire from various quarters since its inception. Its critics included at times producers are well as consumers. Producers have at times claimed that certain of its provisions, particularly those relating to the control boards, interfere with the free-market structures and thereby inhibit the kind of competition which they believed to be essential in order to yield the highest prices for their product. Consumers, on the other hand, have accused the control boards on which there is a majority of producer representation of being responsible for maintaining an unjustifiably high price structure.

There are also those who maintain that the emphasis in the administration of certain aspects of the Act has been on control rather than on marketing. It is further argued that the entire marketing structure in South Africa is characterized by distortion and incomplete competition. For these reasons it is claimed that the Marketing Act has not lived up to its expectations.

There are few who dismiss these criticisms out of hand, exaggerated and misinformed as some of them might be. It is, I believe, generally accepted that there are important problem areas in the field of agricultural marketing in South Africa, and we in these benches do share this concern. We do not, however, join in the chorus which would have the Marketing Act disappear altogether. We do not want to see agriculture return to the bad old days of cyclical booms and busts. In those times the farmer was at the total mercy of market forces over which he had no control whatever and which invariably worked against him.

We accept the necessity for the Marketing Act and we welcome any attempt which the hon the Minister might make to improve the Act. The Government has repeatedly stressed its commitment to the free enterprise and the free market system, and if it is to be consistent, it will follow these ideals through in the legislation which it introduces. Let me say then at this point that it therefore follows that we in these benches shall support the Bill although we shall be critical of certain aspects and we shall be proposing certain amendments.

Our first criticism is a fairly broad-based one and that is that the Bill in itself is primarily a technical one and does not address itself to some of the more serious criticisms which I have already mentioned. The reason for this, I would submit, is perhaps not that the hon the Minister is complacent about the Bill or believes that the principal Act is perfect in every way. We are aware that a White Paper on Agricultural Policy is pending, and we would be surprised if the White Paper did not deal fairly extensively with the whole marketing field. If this is the case, we can anticipate that further legislation may be in the offing. In the meantime the Bill before us deals with some of the more pressing anomalies and problems which have become apparent in respect of the principal Act.

In view on the two important features of agricultural marketing which I have mentioned, namely the Government’s commitment to a free market and the impending White Paper, I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that perhaps the time is now ripe for the establishment of a parliamentary select committee whose brief it will be to enquire into the whole vexed field of agricultural marketing and the problems which we are experiencing with it. Furthermore, it should update and amend the Act where necessary.

To return to the actual Bill which is before us, let me say that we find in clause 1 an amendment which seeks to enable the Minister to control imitation products which may be marketed under the name or guise of natural products. The situation will now be that the State President can amend Schedule I of the Act in order to effect the necessary controls. The losses suffered by dairy farmers recently as a result of the fraudulent importation of powdered milk disguised as some other product, and the unethical use of the word “milk” for products containing no dairy product whatever, provide good examples of why better control is needed.

Clause 3 gives the Minister the power to direct boards to give him information. As things stand at present, there is nothing in the principal Act which gives the Minister the right to acquire information. The control boards do, after all, fall under his control, and it is an anomaly for them to be given the right to withhold information from him. We in these benches are opposed to secrecy in matters of this kind and we welcome the amendment and the powers which the Minister is now being given.

Clause 5 gives the Minister power to declare a product to be a controlled product by notice in the Government Gazette. The principal Act specifies a different procedure, namely that a proclamation is made by the State President. It may be argued that this amendment makes it easier for abuses to occur, which is undesirable, but in fact the practical advantages of eliminating the tedious and time-consuming procedure for what will be mainly routine adjustments far outweigh any theoretical disadvantages.

Clause 12 contains certain provisions concerning the conditions of employment of employees of the control boards. It makes it possible for them, for example, to receive annuities free from tax, thus providing better conditions of service.

Clause 15 is interesting. It makes provision for the boards to continue giving aid to independent states. This serves to highlight the economic interdependence of the Republic and the Black states. The political im lications of this do not directly concern us ere, and I will therefore let it rest.

Clause 17 concerns the penalties which are to be imposed for violating the provisions of the Act. In the past the lower fines which were imposed made it viable for people to risk importing illegally. The fine could be paid and the venture could still show a handsome profit. The maximum penalty is now being increased to a fine of R5 000 or imprisonment of two years. We do have a problem with the prison sentence and will be moving an amendment in this respect. For the rest we have no problems with this Bill and as I said earlier, we will be supporting it.

In closing, I want to reiterate my request for a select committee to investigate the entire Marketing Act. We in these benches feel that such a review is long overdue and would urge the hon the Minister to give serious attention to this request.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Albany for having pledged the support of his party for this Bill. I also want to thank him for his well-balanced views on the Marketing Act and the stabilizing effect it has on the agricultural sector. I shall return in the course of my argument to certain misgivings and reservations that he had to the effects of the Marketing Act.

Basically, the measure before this House seeks to adapt the orderly marketing of agricultural produce under the Marketing Act to constantly changing requirements and trends in the market place. The proposed amendments therefore seek to develop the principles of controlled marketing of agricultural produce more effectively and purposefully. I am convinced that the amendments will eliminate certain deficiencies and problems in the Marketing Act. The deficiencies in regard to effective control over the import and export of agricultural produce are being eliminated by means of these amendments.

The Director-General of the Department of Agriculture is being given the right to impose conditions on the issuing of a permit for the import and export of agricultural produce. He also obtains the right of seizure of supplies upon evasion of these conditions.

The deficiency which exists in connection with preserving the confidentiality of control board resolutions until such time as the hon the Minister is able to take a decision on them, is also being eliminated. The problem of effective liaison between control boards and the Marketing Council is being rectified by means of a proposed procedure on the making available of information.

The problem in connection with the evasion and circumvention of the provisions of the Marketing Act is being rectified by imposing heavier and more realistic penalties for such offences. These amendments are therefore giving greater potency to the enforceability of the Marketing Act. The inevitable consequence of such an action is to the advantage of both the producer and the consumer. I am making this statement with the greatest measure of decisiveness and conviction, because I believe that the history of controlled agricultural marketing during the past 50 years in South Africa has shown that the main objects of the introduction of the Marketing Act in 1937 were justified and to a large measure successful.

What were the main objects with the introduction of the Marketing Act? It was to obtain a measure of stability in the supply and prices of agricultural produce; to reduce the difference in price between the producer and the consumer and to ensure a stable supply of good quality products to the consumer at reasonable prices. The agricultural sector has to a large extent succeeded in realizing these objectives. Therefore it follows inevitably that any measure which can increase the efficiency of controlled agricultural marketing is to the benefit of both the consumer and the producer.

Having said that, I realize only too well— the hon member for Albany also referred to this—that the system of controlled agricultural marketing by control boards frequently comes under fire from its critics. Recently, as the hon member stated, one frequently heard the standpoint being expressed that controlled marketing in terms of the Marketing Act was diametrically opposed to the Government’s declared policy of a free-market orientated system. Against this back-round it is therefore not strange that there have been various inquiries into the controlled marketing system in agriculture. It is very illuminating to examine and compare the findings of these inquiries.

I now want to refer to the latest inquiry undertaken by the Economic Committee of the President’s Council. This report was tabled on 20 February 1984. On page 85 of this report, in paragraph 5.39, the committee makes the following statement as introduction to the marketing situation:

After this critical analysis of the situation, the committee, on page 86, in paragraph 5.40, arrives at the following finding:

Here we therefore have a clear acceptance of the principle that the unique character of agricultural lends itself to the introduction of special marketing measures to ensure, in the public interest, the stable development of this strategic sector. It is significant that this finding is given by a committee of 11 members composed of all three population groups and comprising all sectors of the economy. I am making this statement against the background of this acceptance of principle by the committee having been made after it had made certain comments in paragraph 5.40, namely:

This is the marketing situation—

That is what we find in this report.

Then there is a report which was published in 1976, namely the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act, of which the present hon Minister of Agriculture was chairman. In that report we find the following conclusion of that commission of inquiry, on page 3, in paragraph 7.3:

These figures of these two inquiries show striking similarities. There is no doubt that one matter is stated quite plainly, namely that the unique character and strategic value of the agricultural sector singles itself out for the planning policy of control which will ensure stability. Throughout the entire world, all responsible governments single out agriculture to enjoy greater protection under a specific policy structure. However, it is equally clear from these findings that in the practical implementation of this planning policy by the control boards, no inefficiency or maladministration can be tolerated. I wanted to emphasize this standpoint very strongly.

Now, we normally find that general accusations against the entire control board system are bandied about wildly, and sometimes spitefully. Sometimes this is done out of ignorance or as a result of faulty information. The effect remains the same, however, namely the impairment of the image of the control board system. This creates a crisis of confidence between the producer and the consumer.

That was why the Control Board Co-ordinating Committee published a brochure on the control board system in May 1983. This brochure was published as part of an image-building campaign by the co-ordinating committee to rectify the image of control boards. I would urge everyone first to study this brochure before attacking the control boards in an unfair way. In this presentation numerous questions and misconceptions about agricultural control boards are examined in an honest and unbiased way, and frank answers to the questions are given. If time had allowed me to do so, I could have dealt with some of these questions and misconceptions, but for the moment I shall leave the matter at that.

Earlier I made the statement that controlled marketing was in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer. In a speech made in this House on 20 February 1981 the hon the Prime Minister clearly emphasized the truth of this statement. On that occasion he made certain statements that I wish to repeat here. He said (Hansard, 20 February 1981, column 1966):

He said that the Government would not tolerate a camouflaged attack on agricultural boards and co-operative undertakings in agriculture. He pointed out that South Africa was one of seven exporters of food in the world and that this achievement had been accomplished in spite of the fact that South Africa was a relatively poor agricultural country. The hon the Prime Minister then made the following appeal to the official Opposition, and I quote (Hansard, 20 February 1981, column 1966):

This statement of standpoint testifies to a true perception of the unique character of agriculture. What is more, it also testifies to the right feelings in regard to the strategic importance of agriculture. That is why I want to give the hon the Prime Minister the assurance on this occasion that in organized agriculture the greatest appreciation exists for his personal interest in, and for the confidence which he places in the agricultural sector and in the controlled marketing of agricultural produce.

I want to return to a statement I made earlier. If this statutory amendment will contribute to the provisions of the Marketing Act being applied and implemented more effectively and purposefully, then I should like to support this legislation strongly.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ceres has raised a number of very pertinent matters in regard to the Bill before us now. I also would like to reiterate a point that was made by the hon member for Albany in regard to the increase in the price of maize. We in these benches fully appreciate the difficulty in which the Government has found itself as a result of the devastating drought that has been experienced in the summer rainfall areas. We do appreciate the fact that the Government also saw fit to increase the initial subsidy to the consumer. However, it is quite clear that that increase was unavoidable and one only hopes that in the coming season we will no longer be reliant on overseas importations to feed the population.

It is not my intention to go into great detail in regard to the Marketing Act itself but I think there are certain observations that should be made. Firstly, I would like to touch briefly on what I regard as some of the basic components of the Act itself, and I think at this stage we must also look at the achievement of the Act. I believe we can say without hesitation that the Marketing Act introduced initially in 1937 and since then amended, has contributed very considerably to the orderliness in the agricultural industry. As a result it has ensured a sense of stability for those who are on the land and those who are dependent on the land for a living. Generally speaking, the Act has ensured the supply to the country of adequate food supplies under normal conditions. A more plentiful supply of food has been provided as a result of the impact of the Marketing Act, and it has played a great role in providing the basic food requirements of South Africa.

One other feature of the Marketing Act which I think one must also bear in mind is the fact that the gap between the price received by the producer and that paid by the consumer has been kept within reasonable limits. If one is to take one commodity as an example, I would like to refer to the wheat industry. Here we have a situation in the country where the producer price of wheat is somewhat higher than it is in many other countries—in fact, I would go so far as to say in most other countries. Yet, as a result of the functioning of the Wheat Board under the aegis of this Act, the bread in this country is among the cheapest in the world.

Even without the subsidy.

As the hon the Minister has so rightly pointed out, even without the subsidy. What I am therefore saying is that the Marketing Act has been responsible for serving the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

Over the years, the Marketing Act has played its part in promoting agriculture to a degree where agriculture products are playing an increasingly role as earners of foreign exchange. Here I refer specifically to such commodities as wool, deciduous fruit and, of course, maize in normal years.

I would also like to refer to something that people seem to lose sight of from time to time, and that is that the costs of the administration of the schemes that fall under this Act, are borne by the producer. This is an aspect that is so often forgotten. Let us take this a stage further, and let us look at the reasons for establishing the Marketing Act in the first place.